Allowed

Raj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023BAIL/32422/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed by Raj, accused under Sections 366, 376, 120-B, 328 IPC, alleging false rape and abduction charges. The Single Judge allowed the bail application, considering the prosecutrix was a consenting major married lady who had taken jewellery and money.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount with standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148180

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32422 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Mahesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0076 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376, 120-B, 328 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Farrukhabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his mother and according to the FIR on 14.3.2023 at about 8-9 pm, the wife of the informant had gone alongwith the applicant with the help of his mother and at the time of departure from her home, she had taken entire jewellery and Rs. 25,000/- .

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and prosecutrix of the case is, admittedly, major and married lady and she according to her own wish had gone alongwith the applicant and stay with the applicant for 14 days but when she was recovered then on the instigation of her husband, she made allegations of rape and abduction against the applicant. He further submitted that even from her both the statements it appears that she was consenting party.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Although in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under

¶13

sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., there are allegations of rape and abduction against the applicant but admittedly prosecutrix is a major and married lady and applicant is her neighbour and from the FIR, it reflects that when she had gone alongwith the applicant then she had also taken her entire jewelleries alongwith Rs. 25,000/-.

¶14

Further, even from her both the statements at this stage, it cannot be ruled out that prosecutrix was not a consenting party, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant- Raj , 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.7.2023

¶23

Ankita

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

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.

Arif Ali 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