Allowed

Sunil Kori v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2022/15530/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving rape and other charges. The court cited contradictions in victim statements, absence of internal medical examination, and false implication allegations before allowing the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

Sunil Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15530 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kori Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And 3 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2, despite name of Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant is printed in the cause list.

¶6

Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant, Sunil Kori, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case by the complainant and her family members with the connivance of police personnel due to ulterior motive. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, took place.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that real facts of the case are that the complainant and applicant are the residents of same village and on 01.07.2021 the alleged victim caused damage to the crops standing in the agricultural field of applicant by grazing her goats, and regarding this incident when the applicant went to the house of complainant to make complainant then he was abused and badly assaulted by the son of complainant, namely, Pravesh Kumar. Soon after the said incident the applicant went to the concerned police station for lodging of the F.I.R. against the son of complainant but due to influence of complainant and her family members the F.I.R. could not be lodged.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that when the complainant and her family came to know about approaching of applicant to the police station for lodging of the F.I.R. against

¶11

the son of complainant, then the complainant in safeguard of her son, lodged the present first information report against the applicant implicating him with the allegation as narrated in the F.I.R.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 354-A I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has repeated the same version of the F.I.R. and no allegation of rape was levelled against the applicant, but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim, under the influence of complainant who is the mother of victim and on the pressure created by the police personnel, the victim has levelled allegation of fingering in her private parts against the applicant, thus the Investigating Officer added Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and deleted Section 354-A I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that entire prosecution story has been cooked up with malicious intention and there is a vast contradiction in the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also in the F.I.R.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that entire allegation of rape and other allegations made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. got demolished when father of victim refused to for internal medical examination of victim, therefore, in absence of medical report of the victim and in absence of any opinion of doctor regarding allegation of rape of the victim, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed any wrong act with the victim. The age of the victim as per medical report is 11 years. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by this Court, sympathetically.

¶15

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led 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 and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will

¶16

not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that applicant has no criminal history, which has been explained in para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 03.07.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that applicant is involved in heinous crime, therefore, his bail application may be rejected.

¶18

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that there are vast contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the allegations made in the F.I.R. and considering the fact that the father of the victim has refused for internal medical examination of the victim and in absence of any such medical examination report it cannot be said that applicant has committed rape of the victim and there appears to be the case of false implication, as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant, Sunil Kori, , involved in Case Crime No. 176 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶21

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶23

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶24

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶28

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶29

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶31

Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Mustaqeem

¶32

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.07.27 10:31:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kori v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kori v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Department of Home and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Second Bail Appl. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Home Sectt .Lucknow

Shiv Sagar Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Dukhiram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bale @ Vikas Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow