Allowed

Sajid Siddiqui v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023BAIL/57993/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 57993 of 2022, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Sajid Siddiqui accused under sections 498-A, 376, and 307 IPC. The court noted contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the mode of assault and injury details, along with the applicant's credible alibi via CDR evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Sajid Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168132

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57993 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sajid Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Verma,Saurabh Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 467 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 376, 307 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationNaubasta, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members on 09.06.2022 and according to the FIR, after marriage daughter of the informant was harassed by the applicant, her husband and his family members for want of dowry and brother-in-law of the husband of the victim caused miscarriage to her on 12.02.2022 and on 07.06.2022 under intoxication, applicant after entering in the room of the prosecutrix committed rape with her and applicant and his other family members also assaulted her and when she ran away towards the roof then applicant and his family members threw her from the roof with intention to commit her murder.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant and his family members in the FIR is totally false and baseless and even from its face value FIR appears to be based on false and concocted facts and no reliance can be placed on such hypothetical version.

¶10

He further submitted that although, in the FIR there was allegation of sexual assault and miscarriage against the brother-in-

¶11

law of the victim but during investigation his complicity was found incorrect and no charge-sheet was filed against him and this fact again shows that story narrated in the FIR is nothing but bundle of lies.

¶12

He further submitted that when the statement of the prosecutrix i.e. victim of the case was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then she did not state that applicant committed rape with her and only stated that applicant made sexual assault and also stated that when she gone toward the roof then applicant pushed her and due that she fell down and sustained injuries.

¶13

He further submitted that when the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then in this statement she stated that applicant committed rape with her and thereafter on the instigation of his maternal uncle and other accuse persons, he has taken her on the roof and thereafter threw her from it and therefore, there are material contradictions in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶14

He further submitted that from the medical report of the prosecutrix, it appears that she sustained injuries on her vertebra and except this she did not sustain even a single scratch on her body and therefore, medical report of the prosecutrix falsifies her allegation that she was thrown from the roof as if she would have been thrown from the roof then she definitely would have sustained some other injuries.

¶15

He further submitted that actually at the time of incident, applicant was at his shop situated in Ramaipur, which is about 10 K.M. away from his home and this fact is evident from the CDR report of the applicant, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the present bail application and in paragraph no. 7 of the supplementary affidavit this fact has also been specifically averred by the applicant.

¶16

He further submitted that admittedly matrimonial dispute is pending between both the sides and it appears that daughter of the informant i.e. victim of the case sustained injuries in the house and subsequently on the instigation of her parents, she started making allegation against the applicant i.e. her devar as applicant is the back-bone of his family being younger son of his father.

¶17

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 23.08.2022 i.e. for about a year.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix made allegation of rape against the applicant and also categorically stated that applicant threw her from the roof and from the medical report of the prosecutrix, it also reflects that she sustained injuries in her vertebra and therefore, applicant does not deserve bail.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶20

Applicant is the devar of the prosecutrix and matrimonial dispute is pending between both the sides and although, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix made allegation of rape against the applicant but in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she only made allegation of sexual assault and did not state that applicant committed rape with her.

¶21

Further, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. victim i.e. prosecutrix of the case stated that when she ran toward the roof then applicant pushed her and she fell down and sustained injuries but when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she stated that applicant has forcibly taken her on the roof and on the instigation of other accused persons, threw her and therefore, there are material contradictions in both the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Further, although, there is allegation that applicant threw the victim from the roof but medical report of the prosecutrix suggests that she sustained injuries in her L1 vertebra and except this she did not sustain any injury, therefore, I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that false story has been developed by the prosecutrix on the instigation of her parents only due to matrimonial dispute pending between both the sides and possibility cannot be ruled out that in the house, she sustained injuries by falling.

¶23

Further, in paragraph no. 7 of the supplementary affidavit, applicant made an averment that at the time of incident, he was at his shop situated at Ramaipur, which is 10 K.M. away from his home and this fact also finds support from the CDR report of the applicant, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last one year.

¶24

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Sajid Siddiqui be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶32

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 KK Patel

¶33

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sajid Siddiqui v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Siddiqui 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

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.