Allowed

Riyaz Ahmad S/O Shaukat Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/5047/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that prima facie case for bail is made out where allegations imply false pretext of marriage without specific rape charges, considering the accused has no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each with conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Riyaz Ahmad S/O Shaukat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:509

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5047 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad S/O Shaukat Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy Home And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Pati Shukla,Gyan Singh,Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. No one appears for the informant despite notice.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.783 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 & 376 of IPC and Section 3(i) Da, 3(i) Dha, 3(ii) V & 3 (ii)(va) of SC/ ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police StationLalganj, District- Pratapgarh.

¶9

The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the applicant was having physical relations with the victim for the last four years and now was trying to marry someone else. It was also alleged that on 23.11.2021, the victim coming to know of the applicant marrying someone else, went to the house of the applicant, where he refused to marry and caste words were also used against her. A similar statement was also recorded under Section 161 CrPC and also the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

In short, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations against the applicant is that he had developed physical relations on the false pretext of marriage and now refused to marry. The counsel for the applicant argues that the physical relations allegedly, in terms of the FIR, continued for a term of four years and only because the applicant refused to marry her, the FIR was lodged. He also draws my attention to the High School certificate on record which reveals that allegedly on the date of incident also the victim was around twenty one years of age.

¶11

Considering the fact that the allegations of false pretext of marriage continued for a term as long as four years and there being no specific allegations otherwise of having committed the offence under Section 376 IPC, prima-facie a case for bail is made out more so in view of the law as explained in Pramod

¶12

Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra; (2019) 9 SCC 608. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 20.01.2022, as such he is entitled for bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Riyaz Ahmad be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.25000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 VNP/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Riyaz Ahmad S/O Shaukat Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaz Ahmad S/O Shaukat Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manvendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Vinod Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Dilip and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shrawan Alias Gola Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others