Allowed

Manish Shukla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023BAIL/20577/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Manish Shukla under Section 439 CrPC in a rape and blackmail case. Despite the FIR being delayed and the alleged video not being recovered, the Court found no convincing evidence of tampering and granted bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the amount determined by the trial court.

Manish Shukla Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136368

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20577 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki,Anil Kumar Dubey,Pranjal Kesarwani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Pal

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed vakalatnama of Sri Dubey in the office on 07.07.2023. The same is not on record.

¶9

Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet.

¶10

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Manish Shukla , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 37 of 2023, under Sections 328, 354-Ga, 376, 377, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Radha Nagar, District Fatehpur.

¶11

The FIR of the present matter was lodged by the victim herself on 07.02.2023 against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant is a friend of her husband and as such he often visits her house. Around three months back, her husband had gone out for work wherein the applicant came and was carrying cold drink and chips, he offered the same which was refused but he insisted her to consume it and then she consumed it after which she became unconscious and then the applicant committed rape on her and went away. He then called her on mobile and stated that he has been recorded her objectionable video and if she discloses it to her

¶12

husband or anyone, the same shall be made viral on social media. On blackmailing her on the basis of the said video, he committed rape on her many times and threatened her that he would kill her husband and child. On 06.02.2023 at about 7:00-8:00 pm he again committed rape on her. The First Information Report has thus been lodged.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted but the investigating agency did not recover any objectionable video. Para 12 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is argued that on the own showing of the informant, she is a married lady. It is argued that the medical report does corroborate the prosecution story. It is further argued that as per the First Information Report, the first incident was committed around three months back but the victim did not need make any complaint against the applicant since last three months. It is argued that the First Information Report is a delayed report. It is argued that the applicant was previously involved in one other case which has been disclosed and explain in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 15.05.2023. It is further argued that there was some monetary transaction between Rohit Pandey the husband of the victim/informant and the applicant and the money was not being returned and as such the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Para 5 and 6 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 08.02.2023.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant being the friend of the husband of the victim misused the said relationship and when the husband of the victim was not in the house, the applicant came there and committed rape upon victim and recorded objectionable video. On the said video, he blackmailed her and committed rape continuously.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is a married woman. In the First Informant Report of the present case, victim alleged to have been committed rape three months back but no complaint has been made against the applicant since then. There is an allegation regarding of an objectionable video on the basis of which the applicant is stated to have blackmailed around three months back and continuously raped her but no such video has been recovered during investigation.

¶16

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.

¶17

Let the applicant Manish Shukla , 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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 229-A IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶25

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.

¶26

The bail application is allowed .

¶27

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 M. ARIF

¶28

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Shukla 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

Shahrookh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niyaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Father Apolin Lobo Ex-Director Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanjay Kumar Ladda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman @ Nanhe Vs State of U.P.