Allowed

Mohd. Abid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023BAIL/17100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought release for an accused charged under Section 376 IPC. The court noted that Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings resulted in a pending stay order. Relying on the ongoing stay, the judge allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Mohd. Abid to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17100 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Abid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrendra Nath Rai,Chandra Sen Pal,Sanjay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 390 of 2017, under Sections 376, 120B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

F.I.R. of the present case was lodged under Section 376 IPC against the applicant and two others and according to the FIR applicant under the false promise of marriage made physical relationship with the victim/informant and due to that she became pregnant and thereafter applicant ran away after leaving her. It is further mentioned in the FIR that victim/informant was having 9 month pregnancy.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly victim/informant of the present case is major girl and she knew very well about the consequences of physical relationship and the applicant never sexually exploited her under the false promise of marriage and applicant is not aware about the pregnancy of the victim.

¶9

He further submits that after submission of the charge sheet applicant challenged the proceedings of the case before this Court vide Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6656 of 2018 and this Court on 6.3.2018 was pleased to stay further proceedings of the case till next date of listing and even till date the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is pending and as during its pendency stay order earlier granted could not be extended, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 warrants

¶10

were issued against the applicant and thereafter he surrendered and when he applied for bail then his bail application was dismissed.

¶11

He further submits that as proceedings of the case was stayed by this Court, therefore this fact alone is sufficient to grant bail to the applicant.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that due to the act of applicant, entire life of the victim/informant has been spoiled and she has become mother of the son of the applicant who is at present five years of age and as applicant is not performing marriage with her, therefore, victim being a single mother is facing number of difficulties in the society.

¶13

It is further submits that there is specific case of the victim that under false promise of marriage she was sexually exploited by the applicant, therefore, the act of the applicant attracts the provision of Section 376 IPC. He further submits that the stay order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.was obtained by placing wrong facts as victim was not a married lady although it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court that admittedly prosecutrix was a married lady and, therefore, no benefit can be extended in favour of the applicant under the garb of the interim order dated 6.3.2018 passed by this Court.

¶14

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

From the perusal of the record, it appears that the victim is a major girl and she was having physical relationship with the applicant and as per the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., victim became pregnant with the applicant and applicant sexually exploited her under the false promise of marriage and when victim was having pregnancy of about 9 months then he left her.

¶16

Although it appears from the perusal of record that victim/informant became pregnant with the informant and she also became mother of a son of the applicant but admittedly she was a major lady and she knew very well all the consequences of the physical relationship with a man and earlier the proceedings of the case has been stayed by this Court in an application filed by applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is still pending. Whether applicant obtained the stay order on wrong facts can only be decided by the appropriate Bench of court.

¶17

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Mohd. Abid be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Kumar Manish.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Abid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abid 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tej Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farook Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Pal Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Gulshan Alias Tahira Vs State of U.P.