Allowed

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2023BAIL/36822/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for an applicant accused of rape and cheating. The court noted insufficient prosecution evidence, financial dispute origins of the case, and no criminal history, granting bail with specific conditions amidst ongoing lawyer strikes.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail conjunct with a personal bond and two sureties; imposition of specific conditions; direction to DLSA for legal aid.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178045

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36822 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Amit Kumar Verma,Raman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is called out. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application. Name of counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list. Learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

Learned counsel at the Bar has been requested to assist the Court in the matter. This Court in the light of the holding in Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18536 of 2020 is not dismissing the case for non prosecution. Learned members at the Bar have volunteered to assist the Court pro bono in the highest tradition of the profession. The Court has appointed learned counsel as amicus curiae.

¶8

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.150 of 2023 at Police Station-Sonaha, District- Basti under Section 376, 506 IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act. The applicant is in jail since 09.07.2023.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 24.07.2023.

¶10

The following arguments made by learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

The F.I.R. arises out of a financial dispute between the parties.

¶12

2.The applicant is a taxi driver who lives in Mumbai for livelihood.

¶13

The parties had earlier arrived at a compromise. However, the family of the first informant thereafter sought to resile from the said compromise.

¶14

The F.I.R. is being leveraged to settle the money dispute between the parties on terms of the family of the first informant.

¶15

The applicant did not capture any indecent photographs or videos of the victim. Further no such videos or photographs have been recovered from the applicant.

¶16

No details or evidence of incriminating calls being made by the applicant to the first informant have been brought in the record.

¶17

Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the

¶18

prosecution.

¶19

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶20

The records available with the learned A.G.A. disclose that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶21

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶22

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant- Suraj 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶24

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶25

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶26

The Court has been informed that the lawyers in district-

¶27

Basti are striking work. Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by striking lawyers.

¶28

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Basti shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

¶29

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Basti for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above.

¶30

Order Date :- 14.9.2023 Dhananjai

¶31

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalchandra Vs State of U.P.

Siddhant @ Aashu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkumar Kevat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramjatan Bind Vs State of U.P.

Manthlal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another