Allowed

Seth v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024BAIL/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of the accused in a Section 376 IPC case. Considering the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and medical records failing to corroborate allegations, the grant of bail along with bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each with conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Seth vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31212

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 121 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Seth Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Gupta 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.236 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 03.12.2022, the informant had left her home when the wife of Banshilal met her and asked her to come to her home where the informant was confined for 17 days and wrong was committed by the accused named in the FIR including the applicant, as a result whereof, she became pregnant. The FIR was lodged on 08.07.2023.

¶9

4 . The Counsel for the applicant argues that initially the informant had gone along with the applicant as there was a dispute with her earlier husband and subsequently on 15.12.2022 with the intervention of elders, the dispute was settled and the informant went with her husband. It is further argued that earlier an FIR was lodged by the father of the applicant against the husband of the informant and as a sequel to settled the same, the present FIR was lodged after about 7 months of the alleged incident without there being any explanation. The age of the victim is aged about 45 years.

¶10

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

¶11

6. Considering the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the medical on record not corroborating the allegations coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 08.09.2023, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

7. Let the applicant Seth be released on bail in the abovesaid

¶13

first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.4.2024

¶18

akverma

¶19

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

Seth v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seth v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hajari Kuldeep Alias Hajari Kureel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.