Allowed

Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2022BAIL/11356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to an applicant charged with rape and assault. The court considered the serious nature of allegations but found it a fit case for bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount subject to specific conditions regarding witness intimidation and court attendance.

Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11356 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidit Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vidit Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 504 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Kakod, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar vide order dated 24.01.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 29.11.2021 has been lodged against the applicant by the the victim under Sections 452, 323, 376, 506 of I.P.C stating therein that on 25.11.2021 at about 01:00 A.M. in the night the applicant entered into her house forcibly and on instance of country made pistol on her children committed rape with her. On her objection the applicant assaulted the victim by butt of the country made pistol. It is further alleged that from some time before the incident the applicant was committing rape with the victim. On her objection he threatened her for dire consequences. On 25.11.2021 when the applicant committed marpeet with her, her husband and brother-in-law were woke up and they attempted to caught the applicant but he fled away.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 30.11.2021; medical examination of the victim was also conducted on 30.11.2021 at 4:30 p.m; the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 03.01.2022. After recording the statement of the independent witness K.K. Bhati @ Raghvirendra and Ankesh @ Pappu Singh and other prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on 23.02.2022. The applicant was arrested on 14.07.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that husband of the victim has lodged another first information report as crime no. 502 of 2021 on the same day i.e on 29.11.2021 at 14:52 hours against the applicant and the victim under Section 328, 506 I.P.C. As per the allegation in this first information report, the husband of the victim has stated that the victim is administrating intoxicated pills to him and made physical relation with the applicant from 3-4 years prior to the present incident. On 25.11.2021, he found the victim and present applicant in compromising position. It is further submitted that the victim was consenting party and was in relation with the applicant since more than two years. It is further argued that the first information report has been lodged after 4 days of the incident. The applicant has criminal history of one case which has been lodged by the husband of the victim.

¶10

He has next argued that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the police has arrested the present applicant after filing of writ petition before this court and further submits that allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶13

(a) F.I.R of the present case has been lodged against the applicant on 29.11.2021 as Case Crime No. 504 of 2021.

¶14

(b) The the applicant is well acquainted with the victim from past few years and they were having relations;

¶15

(c) One other F.I.R. has been lodged by the husband of the victim against the applicant and victim as Case Crime No. 502 of 2021 under Section 328, 506 I.P.C. stating that the victim is administrating intoxicated pills to her husband and made physical relation with the applicant from 3-4 years prior to the present incident.

¶16

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and

¶17

involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant, Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

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

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶26

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after

¶27

the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are 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. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶29

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶30

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.

¶31

Order Date :- 1.6.2022 PS

¶32

Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.06.03 17:55:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Agrawal Vs State of U.P and Another

Birendra Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munendra Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.