Allowed

Anil Kumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2022BAIL/52675/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J. granted bail to Anil Kumar alias Kallu in a violent offence case. The court applied the reformative theory of punishment and extensive judicial pronouncements while imposing conditions on the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties upon furnishing of relevant documents. Conditions of attending trial, not tampering with witnesses, and refraining from illegal activities imposed

Anil Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52675 of 2021 Applicant :- Anil Kumar @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu,Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradip Kumar Shukla

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶3

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶4

The accused applicant, Anil Kumar alias Kallu is involved in Case Crime No. 139 of 2021, under Sections 354, 354B, 427, 452, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶5

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is a labourer and works with the first informant. As he has left his services so he has been falsely implicated. There is no allegation of outraging the modesty of the first informant. There is only allegation of tearing of clothes. The first informant is 28 years of age. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.09.2021, hence, the prayer for bail is made.

¶6

Learned counsel for the first informant submits that if the first informant is of 28 years of age it does not give license to anybody to outrage her modesty or molest her. It is also argued that such type of men should be treated with iron hands.

¶7

The bail application has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. also. It is submitted by him that the offence is of Sections 354, 354B, 427, 452 and 506 I.P.C. The charge sheet in the above mentioned sections has been filed.

¶8

If we go through the first information report, two incidents are mentioned therein, first incident is dated 28.08.2020 whereby the attempt of rape was said to have made by the same person wherein with the intervention of the police the parties reached at the compromise and the second incident is dated 23.06.2021 where the allegation under Section 354 I.P.C. is made though, there is allegation of tearing of clothes with the help of knife and the allegation of threat to throw acid on the first informant. It is also alleged that she tried to inform the police but her mobile was snatched and she was given threat to kill her family members.

¶9

If we go through the statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is appended at page '12' of the supplementary affidavit, apart from above allegations one

¶10

admission is there that the present accused is working as labourer in the house of the first informant.

¶11

So far as the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., appended at page - '16', is concerned, it is alleged that on 23.06.2021 the accused entered in her house with the intention of causing her death and she was also given threat to throw acid on her if she makes a complaint to the police. The allegation of tearing of her shirt is also there. The accused is in jail since 28.09.2021.

¶12

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant - Anil Kumar alias Kallu who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

¶15

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶16

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.3.2022 gp

¶21

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.03.23 17:40:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar @ Kallu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Kaptan Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Kamran Vs State of U.P.

Avneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others