Allowed

Salman @ Nanhe v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023BAIL/25373/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by Salman @ Nanhe in a rape case. Despite an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and allegations of blackmail and photo leakage, the Court found no convincing material of tampering and released the major-victim's accused on bail with stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance and protection of the victim.

What did the court decide?

The applicant and two sureties were released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering, and conduct during the tri

Salman @ Nanhe Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136210

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25373 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Salman @ Nanhe Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Tiwari,Ajay Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramanuj Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

A personal affidavit of the S.S.P., Meerut has been filed today in Court in compliance of the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not intend to file any response to the same.

¶9

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Salman @ Nanhe , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 098 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut.

¶10

The first information report of the present case was lodged on 19.03.2023 by the victim against the applicant and one of his associates alleging therein that she met the applicant who is a resident of her parental village who always used to trouble her. One day he met her, made her drink cold-drink after which she became unconscious and then she was taken to the sugarcane field and raped. On regaining consciousness she found herself to be raped. The applicant told her that he has recorded a video of the same and by blackmailing her on the pretext of posting it on the net raped her many times. He then called her on 10.12.2022 in OYO Hotel for deleting the videos where also he raped her. She pleaded to him for not posting the videos on the net.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the victim as per her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has disclosed her age as 21 years and as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she is aged about 24 years. It is argued that even the prosecution does not dispute that the victim was a major girl. It is argued that in so far as the incident of rape is concerned, it is alleged that the applicant took her to the sugarcane field and raped her which is totally vague as there is no date & time mentioned of the same. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that any photograph was made viral on the public portal. It is argued that the victim was a major girl and the relationship was a consensual relationship. There was friendship between the victim and the

¶12

applicant. It is argued that subsequently after the marriage of the victim when her husband came to know of the relationship, the present first information report has been lodged. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 41 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.05.2023.

¶13

Per contra , learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the mobile of the husband of the victim was sent to the FSL, Ghaziabad from where they have retrieved certain photographs of the victim which were objectionable. It is argued that the same were clicked by the applicant and sent by him to her husband. It is argued that as such there has been transfer of photographs from one device to the other. Learned counsel for the State but did not dispute the fact that the victim was major at the time of incident. It is argued that the Investigating Officer has added section 66 of the Information & Technology Act in the matter and has submitted charge-sheet in the said section against the applicant along with other sections.

¶14

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a major lady. There was friendship between her and the applicant. The date & time of the first incident of rape is missing. Since then the victim remained silent for quite a long time and it was only after an alleged incident on 10.12.2022, the first information report has been lodged even after more than three months of the incident on 19.03.2023. The delay of lodging of the first information report has not been explained.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Salman @ Nanhe , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation,

¶21

then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶23

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶24

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶25

The bail application is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 AS Rathore

¶27

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Salman @ Nanhe v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman @ Nanhe 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

Shahrookh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niyaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Father Apolin Lobo Ex-Director Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanjay Kumar Ladda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Shukla Vs State of U.P.