Allowed

Imran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023BAIL/4034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed bail to the applicant, Imran, in a rape case under Section 376 IPC. The court considered the nature of the offence, evidence, jail overcrowding, and the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 pursuant to the Satendra Kumar Antil judgment. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including no tampering with witnesses, no adjournments, and attendance for trial milestones

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4034 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Narayan,Parvez Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Imran, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2022(S.T. No. 2299 of 2022), under Sections 376,509 IPC Police Station Kotwali, District- Moradabad, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of committing offence of rape of major women and extending threat to the victim.Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out to the statement of the victim wherein she has alleged that applicant has committed offence of rape on the promise of marriage. He has submitted that allegation in the First Information Report is that applicant has made obscene video of the victim. No video has been recovered from the mobile phone of the applicant nor he made the same viral. Offence was committed in the hotel but the hotel staff was not examined.The applicant is in jail since 7.11.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental

¶10

right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed

¶11

Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 to any police ofÏcer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i)

¶18

opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

In case the trial has commenced, the trial court will conclude the same within a period one year as per section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶22

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

Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramjee Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niresh Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babloo Alias Brajkishore Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others