Allowed

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023BAIL/28758/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application in a rape case involving sections 376, 506 IPC. The applicant argued the FIR was baseless and delayed. The court noted the delay and lack of recovered indecent videos but granted bail without expressing an opinion on case merits, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to specific conditions including appearance in court and no tampering with evidence.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135919

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28758 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Ram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard Sri Shri Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2023, under Sections 376, 384, 452, 506, 507, 504 IPC, Police Station- Shikohabad, District- Firozabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.02.2023 against the applicant and according to the FIR, on 02.05.2022, applicant committed rape with the informant and also prepared her indecent videos and threatened her to post the same on social media and blackmailed her and on 02.02.2023, applicant called the informant in a hotel but she refused and thereafter she lodged FIR of the present case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and FIR of the present case was lodged after about nine months and this fact itself shows that entire story narrated by the informant is totally false and baseless. He further submitted that even from the perusal of the FIR and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. prima-facie, it appears that she cooked up a false story and no reliance can be placed on such version.

¶11

He further submitted that actually victim is the neighbour of the informant and some dispute arose between informant and her

¶12

husband, therefore, she started pressurising the applicant to perform marriage with her but when applicant did not ready then she lodged FIR of the present case. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 01.03.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the FIR as well as in both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. there is allegation of rape against the applicant but could not dispute the fact that victim is a major lady and she lodged FIR of the present case after about nine months and in spite of the allegation that applicant prepared her indecent videos during investigation, no such videos could be recorded.

¶14

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

¶15

Although, in the FIR as well as in both the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. there is allegation of rape against the applicant but victim is a major lady and FIR of the present case was lodged after about nine months and there is also allegations against the applicant that he prepared her indecent videos but during investigation, no such videos could be recorded by the Investigating Officer.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Let the applicant- Ajay 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social 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 :- 10.7.2023

¶25

KK Patel

¶26

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

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shahjad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhoop Devi@ Bhoop Dayee Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kahkasha Alias Zebi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prince Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others