Allowed

Satyam @ Uttam Chandr v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023/6543/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6543 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the bail application of the applicant accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The court relied on the victim's statement indicating she went with the applicant willingly, noting his lack of criminal history, and granted bail subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Satyam @ Uttam Chandr Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:71336

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6543 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Satyam @ Uttam Chandr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suhail Kashif,Archana Rawat,Arshad Hafeez Khan,Dinesh Kr. Sharma,Shaunak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Ms Archana Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2023, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki.

¶8

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.03.2023 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter.

¶9

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that she is aged about 20 years. She knows the applicant for the past three year. She loves him and wants to marry him and she had gone with the applicant out of her own free will. She categorically stated that the applicant has not committed any misdeed against her. Victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was at variance with her earlier version but even in this statement, she stated that she and the applicant were having a friendship for the past four years.

¶10

5. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is 21 years old innocent person having no criminal history. The applicant has been in jail since 06.03.2023.

¶11

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

¶12

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶13

8. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶14

9. Let the applicant- Satyam @ Uttam Chandr be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 prateek

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyam @ Uttam Chandr v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam @ Uttam Chandr v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Vinod @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahendra @ Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Shiv Sachdev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajendra Singh Vs Union of India Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal

Gunjan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.