Allowed

Mumtaz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/515/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail in a case of kidnapping and rape under IPC and SC/ST Act. The victim is a major whose statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not support the prosecution story. The High Court set aside the bail rejection and enlarged the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 2.1.2023 set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Mumtaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:370

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 515 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mumtaz Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey,Abhishek Tiwari,Durgesh Kumar Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,O.P. Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 2.1.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.2 Unnao in application no. 3712 of 2022 , arising out of Case Crime No. 0107 of 2022 U/s 366, 376, 323 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Barasagwar, District- Unnao.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of consent as the victim is a major lady and she left her house on her own and came to the applicant and thereafter, on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically stated that she was being misbehaved, as a result, left her house and went with the appellant and thereafter, developed a case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He next submitted that charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer without examining the contradiction in the statements of victim. He next submitted that appellant is in jail since 1.8.2022 and he does not have any criminal antecedent but without considering this fact the bail application was rejected by the court below, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant and submits that there is no illegality in the rejection order but they do not dispute that victim is a major lady and she does not support the prosecution story in the statement recorded under

¶11

Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal including the contents of the F.I.R., statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as the victim is a major lady and in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she left her house on her own and went with the applicant, as all these facts were not considered by the court below, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 2.1.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.2 Unnao, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Mumtaz involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶15

(i). The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(ii). The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶17

(iii). The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶18

(iv). The appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.1.2024

¶20

Gaurav/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mumtaz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 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

Similar cases

Ram Singh @ Nanku Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Prabha Shankar Yadav @ Gulle Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Balak Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Qaiyoum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Sameer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Mayawati Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another