Allowed

Lucky Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024BAIL/7903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a case under sections 363 and 366 IPC involving an alleged minor victim. Court noted chargesheet filed, charges not framed, applicant in jail since June 2024 with no criminal history, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Lucky Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70244

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7903 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lucky Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Tripathi,Pankaj Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 291 of 2024, under sections 363 and 366 of IPC, P.S.- Kamlapur, District - Sitapur.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that though, the statement of the victim is not so relevant, but the story which has been concocted seems to be due to anonymity. He added that in fact there is no independent public eye witness of the incident so far as the whole offence is concerned and the police has also failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence against the applicant. He added that except apart the fact that the victim is minor, the applicant has falsely been implicated. He further submits that chargesheet has been filed as such, there is no possibility of his fleeing away from the investigation proceedings and the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 13.6.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that that the applicant is not for bail as the allegation is serious and the statement of the victim is relevant so far as the present matter is concerned as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that report was called

¶11

wherein, it has been intimated that the charges have still not been framed and thus, it seems that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future; the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.6.2024; chargesheet has been filed in the case; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Lucky Khan involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Mayank

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lucky Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky Khan 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

Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Rajesh Yadav @ Khanne Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Devesh Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and 3 Others