Allowed

Sadda @ Bhallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024BAIL/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 323/504/313 IPC for alleged assault on a pregnant woman. Court noted two-year FIR delay and no witnesses examined, relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions.

Sadda @ Bhallu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52778

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sadda @ Bhallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Balak Ram,Rahul Srivastava,Subham Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is alleged in the prosecution case that an application dated 29.06.2021 was given to the police, however, no action was taken upon that. It was alleged that while the informant was having three months pregnancy, she was beaten by the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR has been lodged after a delay of two years on 06.07.52023 without any explanation. The incident occurred on 28.06.2021 as per the FIR version.

¶11

It has been further submitted that although in the ultrasound/sonography report and as per the comments of the radiologist, there was 3-4 months old fetus who died due to injury, however, the applicant is noway responsible for the alleged loss to the victim. He has been falsely implicated. The applicant is innocent. He is languishing in jail since 03.08.2023. He is not a previous convict.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged

¶13

on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Perused the record so also the report of the learned trial court dated 30.07.2024 which is on record.

¶16

Perusal of the report of the learned trial court shows that till 30.07.2024, not a single prosecution witness was examined.

¶17

On due consideration to the judgment of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693; report of the trial court dated 30.07.2024 as well as considering the fact that there is a delay of two years in lodging the FIR which casts doubt on the prosecution story; the applicant is not a previous convict; he is languishing in jail since 03.08.2023 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant, Sadda @ Bhallu, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 375/2023, under Sections 323/504/313 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagr, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶23

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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 R.C.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sadda @ Bhallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadda @ Bhallu v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akbar Ali @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Karan Ojha Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Bhanu Pasi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ramji Srivastava vs State of U.P. Its Prin. Secy. Bureau of Public Enterprises Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another