Allowed

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/8424/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the serious nature of accusations, contradictions in evidence, and the larger public interest, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount subject to specified conditions.

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8424 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aniruddh Tiwari,Ravi Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ram Adhar, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Suneel Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 366, 370, 376D of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sikandrarao, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Hathras vide order dated 18.1.2022.

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 2.8.2021 has been lodged by father of the victim against husband of the victim and three other family members of coaccused Ran Singh under Sections 498-A, 366, 323, 504, IPC through an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. stating therein that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with coaccused Ran Singh on 23.6.2011 and he spent Rs. 5,00,000/- in the marriage. After the marriage in-law's behaviour towards the victim was not good. The victim did not have any children after two years of marriage, therefore, the in-laws started harassing her mentally. The victim's husband started pressurizing her for divorce at the instigation of her in-laws. On 1.6.2021 at about 2.00 p.m. when the first informant and his nephew reached the matrimonial house of his daughter, her daughter was not found there and husband and in-laws did not give any satisfactory answer about the whereabouts of his daughter. They also committed marpeet with them by using filthy language, humiliated and drove them away.

¶7

After registering the crime, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 7.10.2021. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on

¶8

8.10.2021. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 11.10.2021. After recording the statements of the other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and one Veeresh under Sections 366, 376D, 370 IPC on 6.1.2022. The Investigating Officer has exonerated four named persons. The investigation is pending against co-accused Dharmendra. The applicant was arrested on 15.12.2021.

¶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 Ran Singh, husband of the victim has lodged first information report dated 15.8.2018 against the victim under Section 346, IPC at Police Station Ballabhgarh, Sadar, District Faridabad (Haryana) wherein husband of the victim has stated that on 9.8.2018, when he was working in the factory, his wife (victim) has gone from home without informing him. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction/improvement in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. In her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., the victim admitted that she has gone on her free will with one Dharmendra, who was working with her husband at Ballabhgarh. After that she resided with one Veeresh. It is further submitted that there is no whisper about the complicity of the applicant with regard to the offence. It is further submitted that on 8.10.2021 first time the victim has made allegation of rape against the applicant, co-accused Veeresh and Dharmendra. It is further submitted that the victim was admittedly major at the time of incident.

¶10

He has next argued that the applicant has criminal history of five cases, which has been explained in paragraph No. 2 of the Supplementary Affidavit. Out of five cases, in one case Final report has been submitted and in other four cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the court below. Copy of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 to the Supplementary Affidavit. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit 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) First information report has been lodged by the father of the victim against the husband of the victim and her in-laws;

¶14

(b) Husband of the victim has also lodged first information report dated 15.8.2018 against the victim;

¶15

(c) There is material contradiction/improvement in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage.

¶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 involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶17

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, Suneel Kumar 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/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 T. Sinha

¶31

Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.05.31 09:44:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

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

Aman Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Roshan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabuddin @ Shahbuddin and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharad Mishra @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Peetam Vs State of U.P.