Allowed

Sueb v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2025BAIL/731/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. allowed the bail application of Sueb in Crime No.309 of 2024 involving rape allegations. The court relied on settled Supreme Court precedents, noting no opinion was expressed on merits, and ordered release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance in Court and non-tampering with evidence.

Sueb vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8491

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 731 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sueb Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Anand Ji Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.309 of 2024, under Sections 64, 351(4), 319, 318(2) B.N.S., Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken the informant/victim to a hotel and committed rape with her on the pretext that she shall be appointed as manager at a brickkiln. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have even repeated the said offence after blackmailing her for making the alleged video of her viral on social media on 14.10.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about twenty six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is major aged about 25 years. There is no medical evidence to corroborate it. There is no recovery of any video from the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶15

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Sueb , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(ii) 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 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

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

Sueb v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sueb v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sarjan vs State of U.P.

Haseen vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Alias Jugnu vs State of U.P.

Megha Khandelwal Qureshi @ Megha Hayat @ Megha Agarwal @ Megha Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Molu Yadav Alias Vivek Yadav vs State of U.P.