Partly allowed

Sama Parveen and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024NABAIL/23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted interim anticipatory bail protection to three applicants accused in a rape case by reference to a coordinate bench order and Sushila Aggarwal, pending further proceedings and a hearing on date.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granted. Applicants to be released on bail on arrest upon furnishing bond and sureties.

Sama Parveen and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 23 of 2024

¶2

Applicant :- Sama Parveen And 2 Others

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 108/2024, under Sections 376/342/420/406 I.P.C., P.S. Saadatganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegation of committing rape is on co-accused Mohd. Javed who has been enlarged bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 9081/2024 on the ground that in case the paternity of the child is established with him, he will marry to the victim.

¶9

It has been further submitted that allegation against the applicants is of suspicion. There is no direct allegation against the applicants. Their presence has not been shown at the scene of crime. The applicants are innocent. Simply because they happened to be family members of Mohd. Javed, they have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are not previous convicts; they have no criminal antecedents and they undertake to cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶12

List on 23.09.2024.

¶13

On due consideration to the contents of the FIR, prosecution case as well as bail order of co-accused Mohd. Javed, prima facie except suspicion, there is nothing against the applicants, so also considering the fact that the applicants are not a previous convict and having no criminal history and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants Sama Parveen, Mohmmad Gaffar and Rozy Tarannum @ Rozy, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶15

The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicants will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶16

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 R.C.

¶18

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

Sama Parveen and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sama Parveen and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. 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

Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Arvind Kumar Vs Cbi/Scb Lko.

Dharmendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kanak Shukla @ Kanak Lata vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Akhilesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohammad Miya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.