Allowed

Ambikeshwar Singh Alias Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh Alias Nandan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/11078/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an applicant in a case involving sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67 IT Act. The court noted a significant delay in the FIR, lack of corroborative material for the victim's statement, and her refusal to undergo medical examination, finding it a fit case for release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to secure presence in court and not tamper with evidence.

Ambikeshwar Singh Alias Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh Alias… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2340

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11078 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ambikeshwar Singh Alias Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh Alias Nandan Singh

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra,Jay Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Pathak

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of 2 1/2 years without any explanation for the delay. Concocted story has been narrated in the prosecution case. In the statement of the victim under section 161 CrPC, she has stated that twice, she was subjected to abortion and the applicant has made viral her obscene video.

¶9

She in her statement under section 161 CrPC, could not name the doctor who has conducted her abortion nor there is any material on record to corroborate the said statement. He further submits that she failed to give any video as alleged in her statement under section 161 CrPC. These two facts are evident from perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 161 CrPC. The victim has refused to undergo medical examination. Relationship between the applicant and the victim has been admitted by the father and brother of the victim. It is a case of false implication. The applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶10

It is next submitted that there is no material collected by the investigating officer so as to attract Section 67 of the I.T. Act. The applicant is in jail since 4.8.2023.

¶11

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.

¶12

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not

¶13

dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, statement of the prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the victim has refused to undergo medical examination, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

5. Let the applicant Ambikeshwar Singh alias Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh alias Nandan Singh involved in Case Crime No.302 of 2023 under sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 67 Information Technology Act, P.S. Colonelganj, district Gonda 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶22

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.

¶23

6. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.1.2024 kkb/

¶25

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

Ambikeshwar Singh Alias Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh Alias Nandan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambikeshwar Singh Alias Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh Alias Nandan Singh 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

Similar cases

Aamir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mohd. Waseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jubair Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Surendra Rawat @ Matru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Annu @ Vimlesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.