Allowed

Krishna Kumar Giri v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2023BAIL/22154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application of accused facing rape and conspiracy charges. Court cited Supreme Court precedents on presumption of innocence and hardship of pre-trial detention, granting bail subject to personal bond and sureties and mandatory conditions against tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two suretics each in the like amount subject to verification before release.

Krishna Kumar Giri Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125006

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22154 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Giri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Chopra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the present accused applicant, who is said to be the cousin brother-in-law (devar) of the informant, committed rape against the victim / informant in her room when some poisonous substance was administered to her and subsequently the other in-laws including the father-in-law and cousin sister-in-law caused cruelty and harassment to the informant and physical relations were also made by her father-inlaw and some obscene videos and audios were also procured, which were sent to some persons and the present accused applicant also threatened the victim of the case to leave the house. In this regard, F.I.R. was lodged on 2.3.2023 and investigation started.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted. Applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He is the cousin brother-in-law of the informant / victim and has been falsely roped in this matter. It is further submitted that no obscene audio or video has been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation, as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that as per F.I.R., no intoxicating substance was administered to the victim by the present applicant. It is next contended that the incident of rape is said to be happened on 20.2.2022 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 2.3.2023 and no explanation of such delay is found in the F.I.R. or in the other evidence collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is further submitted that due to the family dispute, the present

¶9

accused applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. It is further contended that the husband of the victim lives in the same house, but however it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. that the prosecutrix after the incident of rape ever informed her husband regarding the said incident. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 20.3.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but however could not dispute the fact that no obscene video or audio has been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation and as a matter of fact, section 67 a of the Information Technology Act has been deleted from the matter.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶13

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶14

In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶15

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required

¶16

to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶17

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶18

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶19

Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Krishna Kumar Giri involved in Case Crime No.0064 of 2023, under Sections 328, 376, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Saidpur, District - Ghazipur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶25

(v). 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.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶27

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶28

Order Date :- 7.6.2023 ss

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Kumar Giri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Giri 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

Virendra @ Veeru Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Paurush Kumar Samadhiya Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Datt @ Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Arun Pratap @ Arun Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kavita Bind Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.