Allowed

Murad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024/1103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge bail application regarding an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The court observed no medical evidence, DNA, or corroboration of the victim's statement. The applicant has no prior record. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with witnesses or evidence and ensuring court attendance.

Murad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11243

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1103 of 2024 Applicant :- Murad Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The first information report has been lodged via application under section 156(3) CrPC after delay of more than two years. The victim refused to undergo internal medical examination. Radiological age of the victim has been found to be 25 years. There is no corroborative medical evidence of any sort in support of the testimony of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC. No DNA test has been conducted to corroborate the testimony of the victim that her pregnancy is in any way linked with the applicant. Even otherwise, the prosecutrix is a divorcee and after divorce, she has subsequently remarried with one Ayyub and again remarried with one Munir son of Subrati. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 25.11.2023.

¶7

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the victim is major and has married thrice, statement of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, lack of any corroborative evidence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing

¶10

any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶11

6. Let the applicant Murad Ali, involved in Case Crime No.266 of 2023 under sections 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sadarpur, district Sitapur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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 Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.2.2024/kkb/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Murad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harikesh @ Matole Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Abu Sahma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Mohd. Arshad Iqbal Alias Arsh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.