Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024/986/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in an FIR alleging rape and other offences. The High Court allowed bail, noting the absence of rape charges in the FIR or Section 161 statement, lack of medical corroboration for the Section 164 statement, and explained petty prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Jabir was released on bail by executing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each under specific conditions regarding attendance, committing new offences, and tampering with

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10429

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 986 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jabir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Reetu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA; Shri Sunil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.728 of 2023, under Section 376, 354(Kha), 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that on 27.11.2023 at about 8 am, the applicant caught hold of the victim and tore her clothes and also threatened to kill her and when the said fact was told to the father of the applicant, he also abused the informant. Subsequently, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there was allegation of tearing the clothes of the victim and misbehaving inappropriately. It was specifically stated that nothing wrong was done to her. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., specific allegation of rape was levelled against the applicant.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the medical report on record which does not corroborate the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and does not support the prosecution story. As per the educational record, the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2004.

¶10

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶11

6. Considering the fact that no allegation of rape was levelled in the FIR or in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the allegations levelled under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not corroborated by the medical on record coupled with the fact that the criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in Para 3 of the supplementary affidavit wherein he is being tried for a petty offence being under Section 323/504/506 IPC, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶12

7. Let the applicant Jabir be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.2.2024

¶17

nishant

¶18

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabir 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

Baba @ Jagmohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Suraj Pratap Rai Alias Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Guddu @ Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Bramha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sewak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Sarthak Singh Vs State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.