Allowed

Amjad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.. Chie Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023/129/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Amjad Ali, accused under IPC Sections 376D, 366, and 328 in a rape and kidnapping case. Granting was based on the absence of direct allegations against him in FIR or witness statements, his status as the father of the main accused, and his undertaking to comply with court orders. A personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties was fixed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Amjad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.. Chie Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 129 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Amjad Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.. Chie Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmad Mehdi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed counter affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Amjad Ali) is languishing in jail since 29.09.2022 in Case Crime No.364 of 2022, under Sections 376D, 366 & 328 I.P.C., Police Station-Maharajganj, District-Ayodhya.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.). In the impugned F.I.R., no one is named as the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown person. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged after the delay of 04 days without explaining the reason of delay inasmuch as the alleged incident is dated 20.09.2022 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 24.09.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 of this bail application, which is statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has levelled specific allegation of rape against the accused Imran. In such statement she has not named the present applicant. She has not stated anything against the present applicant. Thereafter, attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.5 of this bail application, which is statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has again levelled allegation of rape against accused Imran and the Manager of the Hotel but no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant. In this statement also no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, rather, she has not named the present applicant in this statement. However, her supplementary statement was

¶10

recorded after the statement being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has levelled allegation against the accused Imran. The allegation of rape has been levelled against the accused Imran. However, it has been stated in the statement that when the accused Imran had kidnapped the victim by one Pickup the father of Imran, namely, Amjad Ali, the present applicant, his maternal uncle Saddam and one Mohd. Sabi were present. However, no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been implicated only for the reason that he is father of the main accused Imran, however, he has nothing to do with the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained one criminal history of the present applicant in para22 of the bail application, which is a Complaint Case No.21832 of 2016, under Section 22 of Mining Act, Police StationKotwali Ayodhya, Distrit-Faizabad. The charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history. He undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

¶12

However, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R. wherein no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. wherein no allegation of rape of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant, in a subsequent statement of the prosecutrix no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant, only the presence has been shown in the Pick-up from where the prosecutrix was recovered, the chargesheet has been filed and the undertaking that the present applicant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order, this Court is of the view that the present applicant may be granted bail.

¶14

Let the present applicant (Amjad Ali) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid terms, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amjad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.. Chie Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amjad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.. Chie Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. and Another

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

Chaitu Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. Lko.

Ajay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kallo Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Sona Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.