Allowed

Sumit Gautam @ Johny v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019BAIL/1684/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The court found it to be a fit case for bail, noting the FIR was lodged two years later and allegations suggest apprehension to silence traces of an old relationship, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each on specified conditions.

Sumit Gautam @ Johny Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1684 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sumit Gautam @ Johny Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava,Shrikant Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Sumit Gautam @ Johny in connection with Case Crime No. 441 of 2018, under Sections 328, 342, 376, 120-B, 326-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67A Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Hapur.

¶7

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix is admittedly aged about 21 years, a fact evident from her school record/transfer certificate dated 27.07.2013. It is urged that the prosecutrix has lodged a belated FIR regarding an incident or as she alleges a repeat of them that happened in the year 2016 when she met the applicant and became friends with him during the marriage of one of her friends, a girl. It is alleged that after they became friend, he would speak to her over phone and had promised to marry her. It is then said that on the day of her friend's wedding too, he mixed some deleterious substance in a cold drink, that he offered,

¶9

that caused the prosecutrix to go on unconscious and ravished her. It is said in the FIR that her marriage is now settled with one Vikash Kumar S/O Sateesh Kumar but the applicant is bent upon dislodging that matrimony. He has threatened the prosecutrix with throwing acid on her face and sent her husband some photographs and videos captured by deceit to the same end. It is said that on account of these alleged offences committed by the applicant her matrimonial alliance is on the verge of going haywire. It is pointed out that in the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has more or less come up with this and some allegation about a two year old occurrence, which speaks more about a relationship that seems to be embarrassing the prosecutrix, now that she has decided to marry a different man. It is submitted that it is just that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the applicant did not work out and looking to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix is now married. He further submits that in the statements under Section 164 the fact that parties were into a relationship becomes all the more vivid, where interspersed with the allegation of rape, there is mention of a promised marriage between parties, and a refusal to marry by the applicant. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no case of rape is discernible from the evidence worth believing but one of a failed relationship of which the prosecutrix is apprehensive, now that she has married elsewhere.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is a consistent allegation of rape against

¶11

the applicant in the FIR, statement under Section 161 and that under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but does not dispute the fact that the FIR is prima facie about an old incident lodged after two years.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the FIR has been lodged almost two years after the alleged incident/event, the fact that the statements of the prosecutrix reflects a relationship between the parties that did not fructify into marriage, the fact that the prosecutrix is now married elsewhere, and, appears to have proceeded against the applicant more out of an apprehension to silence traces of an old relationship, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Sumit Gautam @ Johny involved in Case Crime No. 441 of 2018, under Sections 328, 342, 376, 120-B, 326-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67A Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Hapur be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶19

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶21

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence laid unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 BKM/-

Sumit Gautam @ Johny v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Gautam @ Johny 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Muniram Vs State of U.P.

Tottarpal Urf Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Ram Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Guddu @ Sakeel Vs State of U.P.

Qayum Siddiqui Vs State of U.P.