Allowed

Islamuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024CRLA/376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the appeal has substance due to contradictions in the victim's statement regarding the date of incident. The High Court allowed the bail appeal, set aside the rejection of bail by the Special Judge, and granted bail to the appellant with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Islamuddin vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11582

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 376 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Islamuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arshad Hafeez Khan,Dinesh Kr. Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 50 of 2024.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. informs that as per the received information, notice is already served on complainant of the present case. He placed a letter in which it is informed that the notice was sent on whatsapp no. 7897290351 (whatsapp no. of brother of the victim). The said information letter is being taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case on the ground that he was in association with one accused, namely, Mugle Azam. He further submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged on the written complaint of father of victim on 26.12.2023 with the allegation that on 24.12.2023 at about 9:00 P.M., some quarrel was taken place in his family members due to which victim went out from her home in anger. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that when victim was coming towards her home then in the way, accused person, namely, Mugle Azam alias Riyaz along with his friends abducted her by a white car and confined her in a building near B.S.N.L. Tower where they committed rape with her. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that at about 1:30 A.M. on 25.12.2023, victim made a call to her family members and told about the said incident, in that regard, complainant's son made complaint to the police control room at helpline no. 112, thereafter, police reached on the place of incident, but the accused persons had run away from that place. It is further submitted that statements of victim were recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.; in her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she changed the date of incident by stating that the incident was

¶10

taken place on 23.12.2023. It is further submitted that in victim's statement, it was categorically stated that she made video call to her brother on his mobile phone, but call details records were not taken into consideration by Investigating Officer at the time of investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted by him. It is further submitted that appellant is in jail since 27.12.2023 and all the aforesaid relevant facts were not considered by learned trial court in the correct perspective while rejecting the bail application. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant and submits that victim has categorically supported the prosecution story. But he is unable to explain the fact that under what circumstances, victim changed the date of incident in her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., as alleged in the F.I.R.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, statements of victim recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that as per the prosecution case, incident was taken place on 24.12.2023 and the said incident was reported by victim to the police officials at 1:30 A.M. on 25.12.2023, but in the statement of victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that date of incident was 23.12.2023. All these relevant facts/contradictions were not considered by the trial court in the correct perspective while rejecting the bail application. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Islamuddin 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:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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

¶16

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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.

¶18

(iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 Arpan

¶22

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

Islamuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Islamuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mintu Pandey @ Mantu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Harishchand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arif @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rehan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

Sangam Kumar Verma @ Sangam Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow