Mohd. Rehan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32244

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4535 of 2024

Applicant :- Mohd. Rehan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Siddiqui,Anchal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.213 of 2024, under Sections 376, 384, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 67A of IT Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that since 2016, the informant knew the applicant and physical relations were formed by the applicant allegedly on the false pretext of marriage. Subsequently, the applicant married somewhere else in the year 2020. It was further alleged that even after marriage, the applicant used to harass the victim and on 29.02.2024 when the applicant called the victim about 3:30 PM and after threatening her to sit on his motorcycle and also snatched her mobile phone.

¶9

4 . It is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that the FIR in question was lodged on 03.03.2024 making the allegation of forming relationship on the false pretext of marriage since 2016. He further argues that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail although with whom the applicant is not claiming any parity. The medical on record does not corroborate any of the allegation of wrong being done. He further argues that no date of any wrong being done was disclosed in the FIR. As regards the snatching of mobile phone, the same is not a major offence.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the applicant had not only threatened the victim, he had also snatched the mobile phone of the victim and had also sent certain inappropriate photos on internet, for which, the applicant is also proposed to be punished under Section 67-A of the IT Act.

¶11

6. Considering the allegations in the FIR and the fact that the relations continues over a span of 8 years allegedly on the false pretext of marriage; there is no specific date of the alleged offence of Section 376 of IPC and the medical report does not corroborate the allegation also coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 05.03.2024, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

7. Let the applicant Mohd. Rehan be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 akverma

¶17

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

Mohd. Rehan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rehan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Ashraf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dheerendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Ashok Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Mathura Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others