Ankit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025BAIL/3739/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted in rape and IT Act case where medical evidence lacking, consensual relationship alleged, no obscene material recovered, charge sheet filed routinely, applicant incarcerated since June 2024 with no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with conditions (no adjournment on evidence dates, presence on all dates, appearance on opening, charge framing, Section 313 statement, trial to conclude within one year). ¶¶23

Ankit vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29175

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3739 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pal,Dewendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31690 of 2024, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit.

¶7

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.183 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal.

¶9

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The victim is aged about 20 years. Neither applicant has committed rape upon victim nor he has viral the nude photo of the victim. Medical report is not supported the prosecution story as there is no internal or external injury fund on the body of the victim which itself goes to show the frivolity and falsity of the prosecution case. Further contention is that the real fact is that the applicant and the victim fell in love with each other and victim wants to solemnize marriage with the applicant and when the applicant has refused to do so, she has lodged the false and frivolous FIR against the applicant. Victim is a consenting party. Prima facie, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the applicant. Further contention is that during investigation the investigating officer has not collected any nude or obscene photo of the victim, hence, no offence under Section 67 I.T. Act is also made out against the applicant but the investigating

¶10

officer in a routine manner has submitted charge sheet against the applicant. Further contention is that till date no charge has been framed and no witness has been examined as yet.

¶11

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before this Court. According to the counsel, the circumstances which aled to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2024 having no previous criminal history.

¶12

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶14

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

¶15

(i) 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 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.

¶16

(ii) 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 229A IPC.

¶17

(iii) 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., 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 174-A IPC.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on

¶19

dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶20

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 3.3.2025

¶25

Ajeet

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra @ Shaktiman vs State of U.P. and Another

Magan vs State of U.P. and Another

Paras Rajpoot vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sagar vs State of U.P.

Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Guddu vs State of U.P.