Allowed

Shah Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023BAIL/41485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application regarding alleged rape and use of criminal intimidation. The court granted bail based on procedural flaws in the prosecution case, including significant delay in FIR lodging, contradictions in statements, and absence of medical evidence. No observations were made on the merits.

What did the court decide?

License released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

Shah Mohammad Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185436

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41485 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shah Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yusuf Ali,Hari Bans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.117 of 2023 at Police Station-Nonahara, DistrictGhazipur under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 12.08.2023.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 24.08.2023.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel and Shri Yusuf Ali, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶9

Delay in lodgment of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶10

The FIR is a result of the matrimonial talks between the families of applicant and the victim not materializing.

¶11

No allegation of commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has been made against the applicant by the latter in the FIR.

¶12

Subsequently, false and aggravated allegations were made by the victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 CrPC belatedly at the instigation of interested parties to save the failing prosecution case.

¶13

Material contradictions in the FIR, the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Let the applicant- Shah Mohammad 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Vandit

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shah Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Mohammad 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

Arshad Vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar @ Satpal Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farukh Vs State of U.P.