Partly allowed

Ayub and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2023BAIL/58085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail under 376 D IPC and POCSO filed by 5 accused facing allegations of gang rape. High Court rejected bail for four applicants but allowed it for Shaukin as family head; directed expedited completion within six months.

What did the court decide?

Shaukin released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; Ayub, Intzar, Imran, Irfan bail rejected; expedited trial within six months directed.

Ayub and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

m k,jlCourt No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58085 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ayub And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Narayan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Durgesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Raj Narayn Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Durgesh Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 as well as Shri Pankaj Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicants- Ayub, Intzar, Imran, Irfan and Shaukin with the prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No.370 of 2016, under 376 D I.P.C. and 5G/6, 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Jani, District- Meerut, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/ applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The the main accused Shahrukh, is the tenant of the applicants. There is old enmity between the informant's side and the present applicants due to which they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The applicants are family members and it is not possible that they all would commit rape upon the victim. As a matter of fact, the victim and the co-accused Shahrukh fell in love affair and ultimately they left their respective home on 27.09.2016 and they lived at several places at Delhi for about three years. Initially, the case was lodged under Section 363 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of the POCSO Act, wherein they were granted bail. After three years, when the victim went to her house, the police produced her before the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and after recording of statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the present Sections have been added in the initial Case Crime. It is vehemently submitted that the victim and the co-accused have solemnized their marriage and two children have also been born out. Therefore, the accused/ applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused/applicants are languishing in jail since 08.07.2022, they have no previous criminal history and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicants will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case and has stated that the present accused had kidnapped and committed gang rape upon the her. Therefore, the accused/ applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail in any manner.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the applicants are named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. and the statements of the victim completely support the prosecution version.

¶11

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, nature and manner of commission of offence and evidence regarding the complicity of applicants, no case for bail, at this stage, is made out. However, keeping in view the fact that the applicant Shaukin is the head of the family and there is no one to look after his family and to do pairavi on behalf of other accused persons, this Court thinks it proper to release him on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application on behalf of applicants- Ayub, Intzar, Imran and Irfan is rejected . The application with respect to applicant- Shaukin is allowed .

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court;

¶19

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, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient 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

It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.

¶22

Keeping in view the fact that it is a case of gang rape, the learned trial Court concerned is directed to get the trial concluded with utmost expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy/computerized copy of this order, in case there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.3.2023 S.Verma

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ayub and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Sonu Vs State of U.P

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sudhakar Vs State of U.P.

Bobeen @ Neeraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lavkush Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Tanvir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others