Allowed

Sudya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024ABAIL/6426/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC, noting the belated FIR and a compromise deed that did not allege rape against the third applicant. The bail was granted till the submission of the police report subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report with conditions: cooperation with investigation, no witness tampering, deposit passport.

Sudya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121507

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6426 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sudya And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey,Randhir Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under section has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.113 of 2024, under sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.Paniyara, District Maharajganj.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The informant is the victim. The allegation of rape has been levelled against the applicant no.3 only. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. No indecent video/photograph of the victim has been collected by the investigating officer. Placing reliance on the compromise deed dated 29.01.2024 between the applicant and the victim, it is contended that in the compromise there is no allegation of rape/indecent behavior against the applicant. The allegation of rape is an afterthought. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, in particular, the fact that the FIR

¶12

has been lodged belatedly, the compromise between the applicant no.3 and the victim does not contain any allegations of rape, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants Sudya, Mahendra and Uma Shankar be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶19

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Neeraj

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Anil Kumar Tiwari @ Suneel and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Nisha Lambert and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Siddhu @ Sidu vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Up and Another

Jitendra Kanaujiya vs State of Up and Another

Vansh Chaudhary vs State of U.P.