Allowed

Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024/7852/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7852 of 2023 allowed the bail application. The court noted the applicant had no criminal history and, despite opposing arguments, determined the risk of adjournment delays and lack of specific medical evidence justified release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each. Conditions include attending hearings, not committing similar offenses, and not attempting to dissuade witnesses or

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8168

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7852 of 2023 Applicant :- Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh,Abhishek Srivastava,Imran Ullah Khan

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

In terms of the F.I.R., the allegations were levelled that the aunt of the informant namely Samirun had taken taken a video of the informant while taking bath. It was said that she was involved in the business of prostitution and after blackmailing her, she sent the videos to various persons and subsequently all the said persons had committed rape on her on the threat of getting the video viral. It was also stated that while committing rape, the video was also made. It was also stated that Samirun had administered the victim certain intoxicated things. It was also stated that somehow the victim could have escaped her to a place of Sihari where again allegations of rape were levelled.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the statement of the mother of the victim who had stated that it was the daughter who was trying to extract money and threatened that in case the money is not paid, she would implicate the entire family members of an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. In the F.I.R., general allegations have been levelled against the entire family members without there being any specific date, time and place of the incident. There is no medical on record to corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 20.3.2023 and has no criminal antecedents prior to commission of the offence in

¶9

question, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the general allegations as well as the statement of the mother of the victim herself, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 20.3.2023 having no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Ahmad be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.356 of 2022, under Sections 376D, 328, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67-A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow 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 :-

¶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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.1.2024/Shukla

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmad 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

Similar cases

Kuldeep @ Babu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Gautam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ashish Gupta @ Anshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pratipal Baheliya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Lakhvindar Singh vs State of Up through Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Aman @ Aman Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Sectt. Home Deptt. Lucknow