Allowed

Abhimanyu v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2023/3363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the second bail application of the applicant despite prior rejection, noting the victim declared hostility and witnesses showed no adverse information. The applicant was released pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering and appearing in court.

Abhimanyu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3363 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Abhimanyu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶6

This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Maigalganj, District Kheri. The first bail application moved by the applicant has been rejected by this Court, by means of order dated 25.02.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9111 of 2020.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.02.2020 against five named accused persons, including the applicant in furtherance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on 24.12.2019 alleging that on 31.09.2019, when the informant's minor daughter had gone to graze the cattle the applicant had raped her by threatening her with a pistol and thereafter he used to call her and rape her repetitively. On one occasion the informant caught hold of the applicant and took him to her house. The applicant's family members went to the informant's house and stated that they would marry the informant's daughter with the applicant but later on they resiled from their commitment.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of 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

It is pertinent to mention here that after rejection of the first bail application the trial proceeded and statements of informant and victim have been recorded. The informant, in her evidence/examination stated that she did not know as to who had committed the misdeed with her daughter and that her daughter did not ever tell her that her that the applicant had committed misdeed with her. The informant was crossexamination by the Government Counsel and in her crossexamination by the Government Counsel also nothing adverse to the applicant came to light. During her examination the victim stated that some unknown person had committed the misdeed with her and she had implicated the accused persons on the basis of information given by some undisclosed persons. She was declared to be hostile and in her cross-examination by the A.D.G.C. nothing adverse to the applicant has come to light.

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the statements of the informant and victim recorded by learned trial court subsequent to rejection of the first bail application; that the informant and victim having already been examined by learned trial court, the applicant is no more in a position to influence the witnesses; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 21.03.2020 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant-Abhimanyu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Maigalganj, District Kheri on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Ram.

¶18

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

Abhimanyu v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

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

Narendra Kumar Verma Alias Raj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Bhusaili Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Golu Alias Raunak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Abdul Salam Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, District Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Jhabbu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Munish Kumar Mishra Vs the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home