Allowed

Udai Raj Maurya v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024BAIL/1432/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Sections 294, 354B, 376 and 506 IPC for alleged rape and molestation of a Shikshamitra teacher. Counsel argued false implication due to political rivalry and absence of corroborative material such as hotel records. The High Court granted bail citing prolonged custody, no criminal history and lack of corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each in like amount, subject to stated trial conduct conditions.

Udai Raj Maurya vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13691

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1432 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Udai Raj Maurya Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,Nivedita Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Counter Affidavit filed by learned Counsel for the complainant Shri Vinay Mishra is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.380 of 2023 under Section 294, 354 B, 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Naseerabad, District Raebareli.

¶9

It is alleged in the prosecution case that informant is working as Shikshamitra. It is alleged that one Udairaj Maurya, who is accomplice of Gram Pradhan often used to molest her by talking obscene things and threatened her to meet him in private otherwise she will be removed from the job. On 10.7.2023 at about 11.00 p.m. he called her to Raebareli. Udairaj took her from Raebareli to Lucknow in Saras Hotel and raped her. On 18.9.2023 at about 4.00 p.m. he came at her home and called her at 9.00 p.m. near the Santosh's field. Due to fear she went

¶10

there. Udairaj was drunk and was exerting pressure upon her for doing wrong thing which was being opposed by her. In the meantime, her family members reached there and while he was trying to rape her and disrobed her they have beaten Udairaj.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the husband of the victim is member of the BDC and Udairaj is the accomplice of Gram Pradhan due to political rivalry he has been falsely implicated. No CCTV footage of the Hotel Saras or any other material which corroborate the prosecution story has been collected by the Investigating Officer. No record of hotel has been found at all. The statement of Manager has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which does not corroborate the prosecution story at all. The prosecutrix is married lady. The applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 11.12.2023.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer, however, they failed to show any other corroborative material such as record of hotel register in support of their case.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the facts that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2023, the applicant has no previous criminal history, lack of corroborative material; charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Udai Raj Maurya be released on bail in

¶15

aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate

¶22

proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.2.2024

¶24

Madhu

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Udai Raj Maurya v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udai Raj Maurya v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Harikesh @ Matole Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Abu Sahma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Murad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Arshad Iqbal Alias Arsh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.