Azam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21589

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3205 of 2025 Applicant :- Azam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Sharma,Arshad Hafeez Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arshad Hafeez Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as Sri Satyendra Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and perused the records.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0106 of 2025, under Sections 87, 351(3) and 64 B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.01.2025 against four persons, including the applicant and his three brothers, stating that the applicant had taken the informant for Darshan to Dewa at about 8 p.m. on 16.01.2025. He took her in a room and after administering intoxicating substance in her food, he made her unconscious, raped her repetitively and prepared her obscene photo and video. Thereafter, the applicant and his brothers are pressurizing her to make physical relations with them.

¶8

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that she is a women aged 30 years, she is married for the past five years and she has two children, a daughter aged three years and a son aged one year. The applicant is a boy-friend of her friend Tavassum. She came into contact with the applicant about 7-8 months ago and a friendship developed between them. However, she asked the applicant that as she is married the applicant should not interfere in her matrimonial life. Thereafter, the applicant stopped receiving informant's calls and talking to her. She made phone-calls to the applicant's brothers but they threatened her. The applicant took her to Dewa about 2-2½ months ago. She stated that she had meals brought by the applicant and slept in a large verandah. In response to a specific question put by the investigating officer, she said that the place wall was well lit and several persons were present there. Nauchandi fair was going on there.

¶9

The medico-legal examination report mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force. The findings of the pathological examination report also do not support the allegation of commission of rape.

¶10

In the statement of the informant/victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she stated that she used to talk to the applicant for the past 7-8 months and several times she had asked the applicant not to call her as in case her husband comes to know about it, he would beat her.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 26 years, he is innocent and he has no criminal history.

¶12

The learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and submitted that allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been filed on 03.03.2025.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant is a married woman aged 30 years having two children, however, she has not disclosed it in the FIR; that in the FIR she stated that the incident took place in a room in Dewa, whereas in her statement she stated that on the date of the incident she had slept in a large open verandah; that the allegation of commission of rape is not supported by the findings of the medico-legal examination report; that in the statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that when she asked the applicant not to interfere in her matrimonial life, the applicant himself had stopped accepting her phone calls and talking to her; that the applicant is a young man having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02.02.2025, whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Azam be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 17.4.2025MVS/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Azam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Koyali @ Rehana @ Khalikun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Jaikesh Pal @ Jagesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sri Jitendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Parmanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.