Sartaz vs State of U.P.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100860

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20852 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sartaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Sartaz, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 185 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 3(5) BNS, registered at Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 31.03.2025 by the victim against the applicant, Saddam @ Dhaula, Maroof and Mushahid alleging therein that her husband had gone to jail some days back. She was knowing Sartaj and Saddam @ Dhaula since before. Both the persons assured her of getting employment and called her and when she went there found two other persons were present who said that since her husband in jail and money is needed she may indulge in wrongful acts which she refused after which Saddam @ Dhaula and Maroof raped her. Saddam and Mushahid were going to commit rape on her wherein the villagers came and on seeing them assaulted them and apprehended them. Police was informed and then they were handed over to the police. Report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR against the applicant of committing rape on her. The allegations of committing rape on the victim is on co-accused Saddma @ Dhaula and Maroof. It is submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has stated that she, Sartaj and Saddam were sitting in the garden out of the village and talking wherein the villagers came and

¶11

considering something else assaulted them. She further states that on the saying of the villagers she lodged the FIR. She further states that she was not raped and she wants to get her case withdrawn. It is submitted that the present case is a case of false implication. It is further submitted that co-accused Mushahid has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 15912 of 2025 (Mushahid Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 5 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the victim is a married woman aged about 32 years. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 31.03.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Mushahid has been granted bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is a married woman aged about 32 years. The applicant is not assigned the role of committing rape on the victim in the FIR. The victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS disowned the prosecution version. Co-accused Mushahid has been granted bail.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Sartaz , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this

¶19

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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if 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 209 BNS, 2023.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 1.7.2025 M. ARIF

¶27

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sartaz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

Sartaz 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

Vikas Nishad vs State of U.P.

Bharat Bhushan Bharati vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Alias Bholu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar @ Kallu vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Imran vs State of U.P.