Allowed

Akhilesh Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023BAIL/20472/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 376-D IPC. The applicant, not named in the FIR but implicated via investigation statements which were inconsistent with trial testimony, applied for bail after over three years in custody. The court released him on a personal bond and sureties, noting the case of a co-accused was disposed of similarly.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157893

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20472 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Akhilesh Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Dileep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

None appeared on behalf of the informant even in the revised call, however, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

4.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2020, under Section 376-D IPC, Police StationKothibhar, District- Maharajganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against three persons (not applicant) and according to the FIR, on 20.02.2020, nominated accused persons committed rape with the daughter of the informant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation his complicity was surfaced and when the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., then she implicated number of accused persons, including applicant and stated that all committed rape with her.

¶12

He further submits that the statements of the prosecutrix recorded during investigation appears to be false and no reliance can be placed on such version. He further submits that during trial, when prosecutrix appeared before the trial court as PW-3 then she did not disclose the name of the applicant and only stated that

¶13

accused Ramsanehi, Bhuwar and Lala committed raper with her.

¶14

He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 02.03.2020 i.e. for more than three years and co-accused Raj Kumar has already been released on bail and case of the applicant is at par with him.

¶15

Per contra , learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Applicant was not named in the FIR but victim i.e. prosecutrix of the case in her statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against him along with several other accused persons. From the record, it reflects that during trial when prosecutrix appeared before the Trial Court as PW-3, then she did not even disclose the name of the applicant and only stated in her examination-in-chief that co-accused Ramsanehi, Bhjuwar and Lala committed raper with her. Further, bail application of co-accused Raj Kumar has already been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2023 which has been annexed as Annexure-SA-4 of the supplementary affidavit and the case of the applicant is at par with him.

¶18

Further, the applicant is in jail since March, 2020 i.e. for more than three years.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant- Akhilesh Prajapati, 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.8.2023 P Kesari

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Prajapati 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Lodhi @ Daya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar @ Manish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.