Allowed

Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2024/4980/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail filed by Shubham in a case involving IPC offences and POCSO charges. Court observed that FIR was lodged because the applicant could not pay further demanded dowry amount after the informant solemnized the marriage. Bail allowed on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.

Shubham Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42536

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4980 of 2024 Applicant :- Shubham Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Awadesh Narayan Tripathi, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Qasimpur, District Hardoi.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 05.01.2024, stating that two daughters of the informant aged about 17 years and 15 years had gone away from her home on 17.12.2023.

¶8

In the statement of the informant's daughters recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the elder daughter stated that she had gone with the applicant to his home at Haryana and thereafter her mother (the informant) also reached Haryana got her married to the applicant in a temple. Her mother had demanded Rs. 3 lacks but the applicant could pay her only Rs. 10,000/- and when he could not pay the balance amount, her mother lodged the F.I.R. A similar statement was given by the younger daughter of the informant, who stated that she had married one Krishna and her mother had demanded a similar amount from Krishna also.

¶9

In the statement of the victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C also, they reiterated their earlier version.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶11

The state has filed a counter affidavit annexing there with copies of material collected during investigation, which has already been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the statements of the victims that their marriage was solemnized by the informant herself, who took money from their husbands and who lodged F.I.R when their husbands could not pay further amount of money and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Shubham be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 5.6.2024 Preeti.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

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

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jayant Giri and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Sonu Khan @ Sadiq and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Ranjit Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.