Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022BAIL/42322/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 363, 366, and 376D IPC, the court granted bail to the applicant. The judge noted significant contradictions in the victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The court observed that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail and allowed the applicant to bail on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42322 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu,Amit Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sonu seeking bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC, Police Station Sadh, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the victim is aged about 18 years.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, in which, she has categorically stated that she, out of her own free will and consent, had gone alongwith one Mukesh and stayed at his aunt's house and from there, she was taken to his house at Raniya, Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat, where she is said to have married Mukesh and no physical relations were made between them, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is alleged that the applicant Sonu alongwith co-accused Mukesh had taken her under the pretext that her father had met an accident and thereafter, they had taken her in a room, where the applicant Sonu alongwith co-accused Mukesh is said to have committed rape upon her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC has been recorded after two months of the incident and there is sharp contradiction in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Mukesh has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21142 of 2022 vide order dated

¶12

02.09.2022 and case of the applicant stands on the better footing as that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 02.07.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the charge-sheet in the present case has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the statement of the victim shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC is in sharp contrast to her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The applicant is in jail since 02.07.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit and the charge-sheet has already been submitted.

¶16

Having considered the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, prima facie it appears that the victim, as per the medical opinion, is a major, aged about 18 years and she, in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as under Section 164 CrPC, has stated that she is 18 years of age and is a major. Further, she, in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, has categorically stated that she, out of her own free will and consent, had gone with one Mukesh and stayed at different places and thereafter, she had also solemnized marriage with Mukesh, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the version of the victim has been completely changed and it is stated that the applicant Sonu alongwith one Mukesh had taken her away on the pretext that her father had met an accident and thereafter, had taken her in a room and had committed rape upon her. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC has been recorded after two months of the incident, which is at complete variance to her statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

¶17

Furthermore, the co-accused Mukesh has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21142 of 2022 vide order dated 02.09.2022 and case of the applicant stands on the better footing as that of the co-accused, who has already been

¶18

granted bail. The applicant is in jail since 02.07.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. The charge-sheet in the present case has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶19

In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶20

Let the applicant Sonu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

The applicant shall continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶22

The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses.

¶23

The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶24

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶26

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Nadim

¶28

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.11.10 12:06:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Afsana Vs Mohd. Siddiq

Faizan Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Bihari and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Sundar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Dilip @ Bhola Vs State of U.P.