Allowed¶12

Faizan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023BAIL/44848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; rape on promise of marriage; refusal to marry; false implication; Sections 323/376/506 IPC; Case Crime No. 248 of 2023; P.S. Hayatnagar, District Sambhal; ossification test victim aged 22; medical report; one-sided investigation; Article 21 speedy trial; undertrial overcrowding in jails; Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.; Section 313 Cr.P.C. presence condition; personal bond and two sureties; Allahabad High Court; Siddharth, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44848 of 2023; decided 01.11.2023.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Faizan on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2023 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to specified conditions, with sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order. ¶12

Faizan Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Faizan, arraigned in Case Crime No. 248 of 2023 under Sections 323, 376 and 506 IPC (P.S. Hayatnagar, District Sambhal) for alleged rape and criminal intimidation, should be released on bail during pendency of trial.

¶7

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail, considering the nature of the offence and complicity, the one-sided investigation ignoring the accused's side, the under-trial's fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21, the dictum in Satendra Kumar Antil (judgment dated 11.07.2022), and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails by under-trials.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including non-tampering with prosecution evidence, sincere cooperation in trial without adjournments, abstention from criminal activity, personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Siddharth, J.) allowed the bail application of Faizan in Case Crime No. 248 of 2023 under Sections 323, 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Hayatnagar, District Sambhal, arising from allegations of rape committed on the promise of marriage followed by refusal to marry, and criminal intimidation. Counsel argued false implication, that the medical report did not support the prosecution case, and that the ossification test showed the victim to be about 22 years old; the applicant was in custody since 07.08.2023 with no criminal history. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and considering the one-sided investigation, the under-trial's right to speedy trial under Article 21, the Apex Court's dictum in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I. (S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, dated 11.07.2022), and overcrowding of jails, the Court held a case for bail was made out and directed release on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including presence at framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., breach of any condition being a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208867

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44848 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Faizan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Faizan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, under Sections 323,376,506 IPC Police Station Hayatnagar, District- Sambhal, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There are allegations against the applicant of committing offences of rape and criminal intimidation of victim. She knows the applicant for the last one year.Applicant allegedly took the victim to his friend house where he committed her rape on the promise of marriage but later he refused to marry her.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication.Victim has falsely implicated the applicant only to compel him to marry her.Medical report does not supports the prosecution case.As per ossification test report of the victim she is aged about 22 years.The applicant is in jail since 7.8.2023 and has no criminal history.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 1.11.2023

¶22

Atul kr. sri.

¶23

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

Faizan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anushka Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Arbaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrapal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Ajit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratipal Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.