Allowed

Aman Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022BAIL/53559/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 323, 366, and 376 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court noted a delay in FIR filing and alleged consent by the victim but referenced a precedent to find it a fit case for bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and no objection to inquising witnesses.

Aman Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53559 of 2022 Applicant :- Aman Kumar Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶4

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.490 of 2022, under Sections 323, 366 and 376 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 15.08.2022 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation on 08.09.2022 i.e. about 25 days of the alleged incident for which no explanation has been offered. As per medical report, the age of the victim is about 18 years whereas as per high school certificate, her date of birth is 17.05.2004. The victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. herself has stated that she went with the applicant with her own free will and she visited several places with the applicant i.e. Rudrapur, Bareilly etc. and during this period, she has not raised any alarm and she has also not levelled any serious allegation against the applicant, hence, the victim is a consenting party. Victim has also stated in her statement that she wants to marry with the applicant. Further contention is that there are material contradiction in the statement of the victim. The victim has also refused for medical examination. He has further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2022 having no previous criminal history.

¶6

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and

¶8

others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Aman Kumar Kashyap , involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶10

(i) 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.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶12

(iii) 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 against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) 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.

¶14

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶15

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

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.11.2022

¶18

Ajeet

¶19

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.25 13:13:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kumar Kashyap 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

Mohd. Haleem Vs State of U.P.

Amrish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar Giri Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar Prajapti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.