Allowed

Aman Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2023BAIL/50216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant, Aman Khan, accused of rape and other offences, releasing him on personal and surety bonds with strict conditions regarding court attendance, evidence tampering, and abuse of bail liberty, citing delays and jail overcrowding.

What did the court decide?

Releasement of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232642

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50216 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Qamar Khan,Ayub Khan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri. N.I. Jafri, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Aman Khan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 407/2023, under Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3/5 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Kotwali Hata, DistrictKushinagar, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There are allegations against the applicant of committing the offences of rape, criminal intimidation, conspiracy and offence under Section 3/5 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,2021.

¶9

Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of absolute false implication of the applicant by the informant. He has submitted that vicitm had consenting relationship with one, Rahul Nishad. She left her house at Kushinagar and went to Varanasi to meet Rahul Nishad. She stayed with him in hotel on the night on 01.07.2023. Rahul Nishad, has admitted that the victim left her house in the night of 2930.06.2022 and came to meet him at Varanasi. He booked retiring room of IRCTC and paid money online. He has admitted that she stayed with him on 02.07.2023 and 03.07.2023. On 04.07.2023, the applicant booked ticket for her to Gorakhpur and she went to Gorakhpur. The police after investigation found that statement of Rahul Nishad was correct and the daughter of informant was misleading everyone. No offence under Section 364 and 376 D IPC was found against the alleged co-accused including the applicant. Learned Senior counsel for applicant has brought on record the number of whatsapp chats between the Rahul Nishad

¶10

and daughter of informant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 08.07.2023. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not disputed the facts stated by the Rahul Nishad, in his statement. He has stated that investigating officer has recovered the evidence of booking of ticket, retiring room, etc., for the daughter of informant by Rahul Nishad. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under

¶17

Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of 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

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.12.2023 Abhishek

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Khan 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

Shaukin Vs State of U.P.

Tutu Vs State of U.P.

Ramchander @ Chandraz and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaiveer Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Najar Singh Vs State of U.P.