Allowed

Mangal Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2024/6500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a case where the victim stated she left home voluntarily and married the applicant. Since the victim did not support the prosecution version in her Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements, the court granted bail with standard conditions against tampering, absence at trial, and misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Mangal Giri released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to six enumerated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43516

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6500 of 2024 Applicant :- Mangal Giri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits 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 her family members scolded her and told her to get out from the home, due to which, on 11.02.2024 at about 11:00 hours, she left her house and went to the applicant, thereafter, they went to Gonda where they entered into marriage and started enjoying matrimonial life. He further submits that the aforesaid facts were not considered by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet was submitted. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.03.2024, he does not have any criminal antecedent and there is no possibility of tempering the any evidence, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. They jointly submit that after detailed investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer. However, they do not dispute the fact that victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the bail application, statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant enclosures; it is evident that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, this is a fit case for bail and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Mangal Giri who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions:

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.6.2024 Arpan

¶20

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

Mangal Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sanjay Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Salman @ Munawwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Yuvraj Alias Kukki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Shiv Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Janki Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and