Allowed

Rustam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy Home Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025BAIL/10450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a murder and molestation FIR involving SC/ST Act offences; no specific role assigned to applicant by witnesses or victim. Court found the case fit for bail considering explained criminal history, jail period, and filed charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rustam released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties with specified conditions.

Rustam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10450 of 2024

¶3

Rustam

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Lko. And 4 Others	/ Prin. Sec	y Home .....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Nadee Singh, Singh	m Murtaza, Devansh Harsh Vardhan Kediya,	Vikram Snigdha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Sarjoo	Aklavya, Sachin Kumar Ram, Ved Prakash Sharm	Singh, a

¶6

Court No. - 12

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0296 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, 34, 354-A, 506 IPC, Section 9(g)/10 POCSO Act, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Antoo, District Pratapgarh.

¶11

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 5.6.2024, Ashfaq @ Gorelal along with other named co-accused including applicant have molested the daughter of informant while she was going to ease herself at around 4:00 PM near a nursery close to her residence. She opposed the same and raised an alarm whereupon the accused started hurling caste based abuses, which was objected by informant's son namely Vikas Kori for which accused persons allegedly threatened to kill him and since then informant's son was missing. Thereafter at around 4:30 PM, the villagers informed the informant that a dead body was lying below the Lohangpur bypass bridge, informant went there and saw that it was the dead body of his son, who was shot in the head.

¶12

BAIL No. 10450 of 2024

¶13

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other prosecution witnesses in their statements including Pankaj Kori, the brother of deceased, Aunt-Sarita as well as other witnesses have all assigned general role of molestation to the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Even victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not assigned any specific role to the present applicant while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has assigned specific role of molestation to the co-accused Ashfaq not to the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that even during medicolegal examination, the victim has assigned specific role to the co-accused Ashfaq only. According to postmortem report, cause of death was antemortem firearm injury. The applicant has explained criminal history of two cases in paragraph 33 of the bail application.

¶15

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statements of prosecution witnesses including statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., role assigned to the present applicant, postmortem report, explained criminal history, for the period for which he is in jail, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail .

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Rustam be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

BAIL No. 10450 of 2024

¶23

¶24

(iii) 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.

¶25

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶26

(v) The applicant 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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶27

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant 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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

September 25, 2025 AKK

¶30

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

Rustam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy Home Lko. and 4 Others

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

Ajay Kant Dubey Alias Gulshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Palu @ Rampal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Vimlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Varun Kumar Shukla @ Barun Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Aman Singh @ Daku vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.