Allowed

Neeraj Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a rape and criminal intimidation case. Counsel highlighted inconsistencies between the complainant's and victim's statements, an earlier FIR by the same victim, absence of corroborative medical evidence and no criminal history. The court, without expressing opinion on merits, found the case fit for bail and allowed it with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions imposed.

Neeraj Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4575

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 268 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Pasi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi,Divya Prakash,Mohd. Shahid Akhtar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 victim is married and major lady and is habitual in falsely implicate innocent persons. Attention of this court has been invited towards Annexure-3 which is a first information report lodged by the same victim against other co-accused persons.

¶9

In the statement of the complainant under section 161 CrPC, it is alleged that for the last two years, the applicant is forcibly making sexual relationship with the daughter of the complainant. The victim in her statement under section 161 CrPC has narrated altogether a different story where allegation has also been made against Saurabh Pandey along with the applicant. While giving statement under section 164 CrPC, further improvement has been made by the victim and allegation of rape has been levelled on the applicant and Saurabh Pandey. Relationship with the applicant has been admitted by the victim for the past several months. There is no corroborative evidence or material found in the medical examination of the victim.

¶10

The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 23.9.2023.

¶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 and informs the court on the basis of instructions that against the complainant, there are two criminal cases lodged in the police station.

¶13

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the complainant under section 161 CrPC, statement of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, medical examination

¶14

report, the applicant has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 23.9.2023, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

5. Let the applicant Neeraj Pasi, involved in Case Crime No.538 of 2023 under sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sandna, district Sitap0ur, 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 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.

¶22

6. Observation(s) made herein above shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on merit of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.1.2024/kkb/

¶24

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

Neeraj Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

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

Chandra Shekhar Rawat @ Goley Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Maniram Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

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

Satyam Bajpei Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.