Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32901

Court No. - 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11421 of 2023

Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Gupta,Abhinav Pankaj,Amir Ahmad Ansari,Prashant Agarwal,Shubh Sri Kanha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Prashant Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajdeep Singh learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

2. The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 500 of 2021 under Sections 376D, 343, 506 IPC, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki.

¶8

3 . Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is third bail application moved by the petitioner as the first application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.5672 of 2022 and the second bail of the applicant was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.588 of 2023.

¶9

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that witnesses have been examined by the trial court at the moment there is no question of tempering the evidence,therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has also pointed out that the statement of the doctor recorded before the court below wherein he has stated that he was not sure whether the rape was committed against the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out some contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix.

¶10

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Rajdeep Singh has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the prosecutrix in her

¶11

statement before the court has deposed that she was raped by the applicant. He has further submitted that the prosecution case is standing on the same footing and there is no change circumstances at the moment, as such the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶12

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the prosecutrix herself in her statement recorded before the court below has stated that she was raped by the applicant, the argument of learned A.G.A. that there is no change circumstances at the moment, therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a not fit case for bail.

¶13

7. Accordingly the bail application of the applicantSalman is rejected . However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.4.2024 dk/

¶15

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

Salman v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saket Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Parvez Khan vs state of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and others

Riyasat Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prateek Saxena and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Haarun vs Union of India (D.R.I)

Kalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.