Allowed

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023BAIL/44837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allowed a bail application and released the applicant on bail subject to conditions in a case involving rape and dowry allegations, noting the lack of material suggesting tampering with evidence and the major status of the victim.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to attend court, not harass victim, and preserve evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204008

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44837 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the first informant who files his vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record, and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Jitendra Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 243 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged by the victim herself on 04.08.2023 against the applicant and his family members alleging therein that her marriage was settled with the applicant Jitendra Kumar after which they used to meet each other and then one day the applicant established forceful physical relationship with her. After which there was a regular physical relationship between them and in the meantime she became pregnant many times on which the applicant gave her medicines and got it aborted. When she pressed the applicant for marriage he refused it. When his family members were asked for it he started demanding excessive dowry after which they refused marriage. The FIR has thus been lodged.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is aged about 28 years as per her High School Certificate and also as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the present case is case of consent. It is further

¶11

argued that in so far as the allegation of the victim became pregnant and then aborting the said pregnancy after the applicant giving her medicines is concerned, the same was found to be false and Section 313 IPC was deleted in the present matter. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant only under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.09.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statement of the victim recorded during investigation.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is aged about 28 years and a major woman. The relationship was on a settlement of marriage between them which subsequently could not materialize. The FIR has been lodged after the break up of the discussion of the marriage.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant Jitendra Kumar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

(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

¶19

liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be 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.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

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

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar 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

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Kasim Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Babu @ Vikash Vs State of U.P.

Gulli Alias Satish Kashyap Vs State of U.P.