Mohd. Rustam @ Rustam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58099

Court No. - 19

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3026 of 2023

Applicant :- Mohd. Rustam @ Rustam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyanendra Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 128 of 2022, under sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354Kha, 376D, I.P.C., and section 3/4, 7/8, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Mandhata, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged on 28.04.2022 at 15:23 hrs. against 13 named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that at about 5:00 p.m. on 21.04.2022 all the accused persons attacked the informant's house, demolished a wall and started throwing debris in a well. When the informant resisted, all the accused persons assaulted her by entering her house and they also beaten up the her mother and sister and the accused Shahenshah, Salman, Fullan, and Mehtab raped the informant's sister.

¶9

In the statements of the informant and her family members recorded under section 161, CrPC, all of them reiterated the FIR version.

¶10

The Investigating Officer recorded statement of some Independent witnesses, all of whom stated that there is a dispute regarding a land, which is recorded as Naveen Parti and suit under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by the Lekhpal in the Court of SDM, Sadar in the year 1998. Coaccused- Salman had filed a PIL (Civil) No. 21932 of 2021 in this court and for this reason the informant has falsely implicated the applicant and his family members alleging commission of rape, whereas the fact is that the informant was getting a wall raised on the disputed land forcibly, due to which a scuffle ensued and persons from both the sides indulged in brick-batting.

¶11

The informant and her family members were medically examined. The informant has suffered some contusions. Her mother also suffered two contusions on right leg and thigh. Her sister, who was allegedly raped, has not suffered any visible injury. In the Pathological Examination Report no spermatozoa was seen in the vaginal smear slide and in the Radiological Examination Report her age has been opined to be 18 years.

¶12

The investigating officer has recorded statement of the Doctor, who has conducted medico-legal examination of the victim and she stated that no mark of any injury was found on any part of the victim's body.

¶13

Co-accused persons, namely, Salman, and Yunus alias Mohd. Yunus have been granted bail by this Court by means of orders dated 02.06.2023, and 04.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos.7378 of 2023, and 2149 of 2023

¶14

respectively.

¶15

Co-accused, Shahanshah and Mohd. Haneef have been granted anticipatory bail by means of orders dated 02.11.2023 and 04.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2462 of 2023 and 2767 of 2023 respectively.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 22.12.2023 while granting opportunity to the State for filing a counter affidavit.

¶17

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail application, but no new fact has come in light which may warrant variance of the aforesaid order granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already furnished the bail bonds in compliance of the interim anticipatory bail order dated 22.12.2023.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the interim anticipatory bail order dated 22.12.2023 passed in this case is made absolute. The application for anticipatory bail is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Ram.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Rustam @ Rustam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rustam @ Rustam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Annu Singh Vs State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary Department of Home and Anr.

Maha Shiv Shakti Siddhpeeth Trust,Lko. Thru. Treasurer Shyam Sundar Srivastava Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malihabad, Lko. and 2 Others

Devraj Verma Vs Principal Judge Family Court,Shravasti and Another

Rajan Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sachin Singh @ Shivam Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shiv Prasad and 7 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Lakhimpur Kheri and 10 Others