Allowed

Mohd. Furkaan v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023/267/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for charges of rape and related offences, the Single Judge granted bail to the applicant. The court noted discrepancies in the FIR regarding the timeline, lack of corroborating video evidence, no medical injuries reported, and the applicant's clean record as grounds for release.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail by furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each on standard conditions.

Mohd. Furkaan Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 267 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Furkaan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 0481/2022, under Sections 376/417/534/506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.

¶7

This case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 09.10.2022 against the applicant and his cousin, stating that the applicant is related to the informant and he allured the informant that he would marry her. About one year prior to lodging of the FIR, the applicant had called the informant near a pond outside the village and he forcibly raped her and threatened to spread her obscene video and under this threat, he raped her on several occasions. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the aforesaid allegations.

¶8

In the medico legal examination report of the informant, no injury or sign of use of force has been reported.

¶9

In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the informant stated her age to be 24 years, she knows the applicant for the past one year, he is related to her and the applicant's family members had come to see her for her marriage but after seeing her they declined to get her married to the applicant but

¶10

even after this, the informant continued to talk to the applicant on phone and the applicant had told that he would marry her. Although, she stated that the applicant had called her near a pond and forcibly raped her, she stated that the pond is situated at about 10-20 steps away from her home and nobody heard when she had shouted. She stated that she did not suffer any injury or pain. She stated that the applicant had prepared a video while he had raped her.

¶11

The state has filed a counter annexing therewith the copies of relevant material collected during investigation and nothing has been found which may support the allegation of videography of the incident by the applicant.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that even as per the FIR allegation the incident in question occurred about one year prior to the incident and again on 12.07.2022 yet the FIR has been lodged on 09.10.2022; that informant has stated in her statement that she knows the applicant, he has related to her and her family members had come to see her for her marriage but they had declined to get her marriage to the applicant and yet she continued to visit the applicant; that the applicant has stated her age to be 24 years and the allegations are not supported by the medico legal examination report of the victim and coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 10.10.2022 and without making any observation which may affect the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Mohd. Furkaan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0481/2022, under Sections 376/417/534/506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur on furnishing a

¶15

bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.4.2023

¶21

Pradeep/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Furkaan v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Furkaan v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Abhinav Pal Alias Nanoo and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ram Prasad (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko

Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Lko.

Balram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Pawan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

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