Arif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148708

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28186 of 2021

Applicant :- Arif Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Shukla,Karunesh Narayan Tripathi,Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Rakesh Pati Tiwari,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2021, under Sections 354, 376(3), 323, 506 IPC & 4(2) POCSO Act, Police StationFareedpur, District- Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under Section 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act and according to the FIR, applicant tried to out rage the modesty of daughter of the informant aged about 16 years and at the time of incident, number of persons gathered and they have beaten the applicant and thereafter applicant was taken to the hospital.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation of out-raging the modesty and rape made against the applicant by the informant in the FIR and in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is totally false and baseless and there are material contradiction in both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

He further submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. victim stated that applicant tried to drag her in the field of sugarcane and number of persons gathered there and they saved her but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she changed her earlier version and stated that applicant committed rape with her after entering in the house and this fact suggests that victim is not a reliable witness.

¶11

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 04.04.2021 i.e. for more than two years.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim is a minor girl below 18 years' of age and she made allegation of rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that she did not make any allegation of rape in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even she changed the place of incident in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶13

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

¶14

Although, victim appears to be below 18 years' old girl at the time of incident and she made allegation of rape against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there was allegation of rape and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. victim stated that applicant tried to drag her in the field of sugarcane and number of persons gathered there and they saved her and therefore, there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Further, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she also changed the place of incident and stated that she was raped in her home by the applicant. Applicant is in jail for more than two years.

¶15

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant- Arif Ali 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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

¶20

evidence.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 25.7.2023

¶25

KK Patel

¶26

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

Arif Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramu Alias Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pravesh Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf Khan Vs State of U.P.

Khursheed @ Raja Khan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Vs State of U.P.