Allowed

Mohd. Salim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023BAIL/10904/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the court considered factors including the delayed FIR and allegations of false implication while dismissing arguments needing merit evaluation. Held that the applicant made out a case for bail allowing release subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard conditions.

Mohd. Salim Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10904 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Salim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena,Pawan Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avinash Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

List has been revised.

¶5

Heard Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.347 of 2022, under Sections 376, 452, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken Rs.85,000/- from the victim/informant for his business. On having demanded the said money, the applicant is stated to have refused to return it. Later on, on 24.04.2021 at about 11:00 AM, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant and is stated to have raped her by showing a knife to her. The husband of the victim used to do a job at Saudi Arabia, as such was not present, so the matter was reported to him twenty days after the incident.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that even the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 27.09.2022, which itself is delayed by about five months. The victim is 32 years of old and there is no evidence of any borrowing of money by the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations of the FIR have been reiterated in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which is after a delay of six months. No injury has been sustained by the injured person. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant except the case under Sections 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C. and the said sections are bailable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2022. In case, the applicant is

¶9

released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the FIR is delayed.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Mohd. Salim involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.3.2023

¶21

Ravi Kant

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Salim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Salim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajnesh @ Rajnish Vs State of U.P.

Hafiz Mohd. Suleman @ Mohd. Sajjad Ansari Vs State of U.P.

sonu Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Pooja Arora Vs State of U.P.