Buddha Alias Bodda vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32232

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7943 of 2025 Applicant :- Buddha Alias Bodda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Sanjeev Kumar Sahu,Shivangi Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.206 of 2024, under Sections 376, 452 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khakhareru, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted the informant and his wife on 16.09.2023 at about 8:00 p.m. and had caused injuries to them and the FIR was instituted by the informant against the applicant regarding the said incident. Subsequent to it, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant on 16.10.2023 at about 7:00 p.m. and committed rape with his wife.

¶9

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 two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. Even the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved on 25.10.2023, which is delayed by about nine days to the incident. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a married lady, obviously she is major. In FIR No.218 of 2023, the applicant is on bail.

¶10

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 19.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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 .

¶14

Let the applicant- Buddha Alias Bodda , 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.3.2025

¶20

(Ravi Kant)

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

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

Buddha Alias Bodda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddha Alias Bodda 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash Gangwar vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Saroj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash vs State of U.P.

Tapas Rai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Haricharan Gaur vs State of U.P. and 3 Others