Allowed

Upendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2022BAIL/4852/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shri Manish Yadav filed bail application for the applicant in Case Crime No. 208 of 2021 at Police Station-Barhan, District Agra. The application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra on 06.01.2022. The applicant pleaded false implication. The High Court allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed; the applicant Upendra was ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4852 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Upendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devi Dayal

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.208 of 2021 at Police Station-Barhan, DistrictAgra under Sections 376, 342, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 24.11.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Agra on 06.01.2022.

¶7

Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The victim and the applicant were intimate. Their relationship came to the knowledge of the family of the victim. The F.I.R. is the result of such opposition. The delay in lodgment of the F.I.R. in the facts of the case is fatal to the prosecution case. Aggravated and false allegations have been made in the F.I.R. as well as statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim. The victim has not made any allegation of commission of rape by the applicant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. Material

¶8

contradictions in the F.I.R. as well as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. The medical report does not corroborate commission of rape by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Devi Dayal, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant-Upendra 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 subject to following conditions.

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is

¶15

exempted.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.29 09:24:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Upendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Chiku Alias Atahar Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bablu @ Virendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others