Allowed

Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024BAIL/424/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 376, 377, 323, 452 IPC arising from a delayed FIR alleging rape and video threats. The court noted the unexplained three-year delay, lack of corroboration or recovery of mobile, no criminal history, and allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3809

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 424 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

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

¶8

2 . An F.I.R. in question was lodged on 02.08.2023 alleging that on 10.09.2020 at about 2 PM in the afternoon when the victim was sleeping in her room, the applicant came to her room committed rape on her while her daughter was lying besides her. It was stated that a video was also made and thereafter threatened of making the video and photograph of the victim viral, committed the offence under Sections 376 & 377 IPC on various occasions. It was also stated that on 29.07.2023, when the ladies living in the village came to know that the applicant had the video of the victim being raped and taking bath, she has lodged the FIR.

¶9

3 . The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that there is no explanation of inordinate delay of more than three years in lodging the FIR. He further argues that an FIR was registered being FIR No. 0042 of 2018 against the family members of the victim, in which a charge sheet was filed and the trial was going on and only to exert pressure to compromise the said case, the present FIR was lodged. He further argues that the alleged video and photographs were not recovered from the

¶10

applicant.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

5. Considering the said submission coupled with the fact that primarily there is a huge delay of more than three years in lodging the FIR without there being any plausible explanation, there is no recovery of any mobile, allegations are not corroborated by any document whatsoever and the FIR was lodged at the instance of the applicant against the family members of the victim, prima facie, the case for bail is made out particularly the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 04.08.2023, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

6. Let the applicant Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 310 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376, 377, 452 IPC and Section 67-E Information Technology Act, Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki, 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Arun

¶18

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

Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu 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

Kailash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Rajendra Gupta Third Bail Vs State of U.P.

Babu Ram Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Aditya Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Kalichand Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.