Rajman Rajbhar and Another vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1800

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12379 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajman Rajbhar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State, and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 249 of 2023, under Sections 376, 384 I.P.C. and 67A Information Technology Act, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The allegation of rape and uploading indecent video of the victim on the social site has been assigned to co-accused Sunny Rajbhar. Allegation of extortion has been assigned to the applicants. It is contended that the said allegation is false. There is neither any allegation in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about delivery of any property or valuable security. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Isaac Isanga Musumba and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2014 (15) SCC 357 . Further, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants under Section 384 I.P.C. However, learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants under Sections 376, 384 I.P.C. and 67A I.T. Act. The investigation has been completed and the applicants had cooperated in the investigation. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants and, in particular, the facts that the allegation of rape and uploading indecent video of the victim has been assigned to co-accused Sunny Rajbhar, there is neither any allegation in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about delivery of any property or valuable security, the applicants had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicants- Rajman Rajbhar and Shiv @ Shivaji Rajbhar, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶13

(ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶14

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.

¶15

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶16

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 SKT/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajman Rajbhar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajman Rajbhar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikant Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Sachin Alias Sachin Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gopal Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnawaz vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Sharma vs State of U.P.