Allowed

Shamshuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024/759/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application by Shamshuddin in FIR involving Section 376-D, 354, 354-B IPC and Section 66-D IT Act. Bail allowed due to absence of rape allegations in FIR/Section 161 statement and lack of medical corroboration for Section 164 allegations. Applicant released on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail pending trial by furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Shamshuddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6760

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 759 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shamshuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Bajpai 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.389 of 2023, under Sections 376-D, 354, 354-B, 506 IPC and Section 66-D of IT Act, Police Station Rupaideeha, District Bahraich.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the informant was aged about 21 years and one Islam son of Rafiuddin used to come at her home for tuition and after alluring used to misbehaved with her along with his friends including the applicant. It was also alleged that certain photographs were taken. No allegation of rape was levelled in the FIR. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., wherein, once again only the allegation of taking inappropriate photographs and misbehave were made. No allegation of rape were levelled, however, in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., for the first time, it was stated that the co-accused Islam called her and took her to a particular place where the applicant and the other named accused persons have committed the offence of rape. The medical examination report on record does not support the allegations levelled in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

5. Considering the fact that there were no allegation with regard to the offence under Section 376 IPC in the FIR or in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the allegations under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are primarily not corroborated with the medical report on record coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 08.11.2023, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

6. Let the applicant Shamshuddin be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.1.2024 akverma

¶16

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

Shamshuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

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

Jiyauddin Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Chhote Alias Samarpal Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P. Government, Lucknow

Satya Prakash Mishra Alias Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Ravendra Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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