Allowed

Murtaza Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2022BAIL/39452/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a rape case where his name appeared for the first time in the prosecutrix's supplementary statement. The Court imposed conditions including prohibition from tampering with evidence and requiring presence for framing of charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Murtaza Ali Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39452 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Murtaza Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar,Manish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

The Court is convened through video conferencing.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Murtaza Ali, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0130 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 323 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mundhapandey, District Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report lodged by Jareef Ahmad the father of the prosecutrix. There is an allegation that Tehjeeb came to his house on the day of the incident and dragged his daughter to his house and committed rape upon her. She was found by him in the house of Tehjeeb at the roof. It is argued that the prosecutrix in her first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also does not name the applicant but states of co-accused Tehjeeb committing rape upon her. Subsequently, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she discloses the name of the applicant and states that the applicant and coaccused Tehjeeb came to her house took her away and committed rape upon her. It is argued that the same is an afterthought just in order to falsely implicate and harass the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 11 of the affidavit and is in jail since 10.06.2021.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the prosecutrix has named the applicant in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there is an allegation against him of committing rape upon the prosecutrix.

¶10

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the

¶11

First Information Report, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant and the first statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix. His name surfaces for the first time in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Murtaza Ali , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶24

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.2.2022 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Murtaza Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murtaza Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatin Makhija and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Sattar Vs State of U.P.

Noor Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Maubaat Shah Vs State of U.P.