Allowed

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

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023/2698/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2698 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with offences under Sections 376-D, 354, 452, 504, and 506 IPC. The court observed the lack of medical injuries to the victim, significant delay in FIR registration, and prior bail for co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts.

Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2698 of 2023 Applicant :- Usman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2017, under Sections 376-D, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 06.04.2017 against four named accused persons, alleging that on 07.02.2017, all the accused persons entered the informant's house armed with sticks, baka and a country made pistol, they abused the informant and all of them raped her.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶9

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

¶10

During investigation, statements of some independent witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer, all of whom stated that the informant has falsely implicated the accused persons due to some old animosity.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-

¶12

accused persons, namely, Meraj and Musheer alias Naseer have already been granted bail by means of order dated 10.04.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4800 of 2023.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 07.02.2017, whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.04.2017 and there is no explanation for the delay; that the allegation is not supported by the medico legal examination report of the victim and that two of the other coaccused persons have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Usman be released on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2017, under Sections 376-D, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

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

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Preeti.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Vijay Kumar Raidas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Alias Jyotendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Aman Shah Vs State Thru. CBI/AC-1, New Delhi

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

Neeraj Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Hoem Lko.