Allowed

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022BAIL/39676/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail to Rahul Kumar in a rape and kidnapping case under Sections 376 and 366 I.P.C. despite discrepancies in the victim's statements, noting her age was determined to be over 18. The applicant must fulfill standard bail conditions including attendance and non-misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions to ensure appearance and non-interference.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39676 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Rahul Kumar , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 92 of 2021, under Sections 376, 366 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj.

¶7

The first information report of the present case was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. on 09.03.2021 by Vijay Bahadur, the father of the prosecutrix against the applicant only alleging therein that his daughter aged about 12 years has been allured and enticed away by the applicant on 04.03.2021 at about 4 AM. She is not traceable till date.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the prosecutrix was then recovered and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded where she has stated that she went with the applicant after he called her. He then established forcible physical relationship. It is argued that subsequently in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she was taken away by the applicant forcibly after her hand and eyes were tied and was given some medicine after which the applicant, Raghunath and Sunil committed rape upon her. Subsequently her second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has stated that she went with the applicant after she forced him to take her. There was physical relationship between them. The allegation with regard to other two persons committing rape is concerned, she states the same was told by her father to disclose to falsely implicate them. It is argued that during investigation Section 376 I.P.C. was added and Section 363 I.P.C. was deleted. It is argued that in three statements of the prosecutrix there are three different versions given by her. Learned counsel has argued that

¶9

in the supplementary medical examination, the age of the prosecutrix has been opined to be above 18 years and as such she is major. It is argued that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 and is in jail since 17.05.2021.

¶10

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the prosecutrix as per the supplementary medical examination report is above 18 years and as such is a major. There are three different versions in her three statements. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she states of three persons committing rape which was subsequently stated to be disclosed by her on the saying of her father.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings

¶18

against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶19

(v) 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. 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 AS Rathore

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.11 16:42:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar 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

Sitaram Vs State of U.P.

Farman Vs State of U.P.

Hariom @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow