Allowed

Mohd. Arsh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2024BAIL/995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under section 376 IPC and sections 66-E/67 IT Act concerning alleged sexual relations continued over six months under threat of posting photographs on Instagram. Court noted victim was a major, statements recorded, applicant in custody since June 2023 with no criminal history, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each, with standard conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

Mohd. Arsh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21545

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 995 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Arsh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Shadab Waheed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karm Veer Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karm Veer Yadav who appears for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

This is second application for bail, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as not pressed on 19.10.2023.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.147 of 2023 under section 376 IPC and section 66-E/67 of Information Technology Act, P.S. Gosainganj, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶9

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 20 years met the applicant and the applicant took out her certain photographs and under the threat of posting the same on Instagram, continued physical relations over a span of six months and also forced her to marry.

¶10

The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she admitted that for the last six months, physical relations were being formed allegedly under the threat of making the photographs viral.

¶11

The counsel for the informant argues that the victim had married elsewhere during the pendecy of the trial.

¶12

Considering the fact that the statement of the informant and the victim have already been recorded coupled with the fact that allegedly the relationship continued over a span of six months and the victim was a major, a case for bail is made out particularly when the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 19.06.2023. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Mohd. Arsh be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount 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 :- 12.3.2024 VNP/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Arsh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Arsh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Home, Lko.

Azad Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Chhotkau Alias Wasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others