Allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023BAIL/48137/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J. dismissed objections and granted bail to Rajesh Kumar, applicant in a crime under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The court noted the relationship appeared consensual and no evidence suggested tampering. Bail granted with personal bond and sureties on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rajesh Kumar released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:233332

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48137 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Husain,Atharva Dixit,Navin Kumar Sharma,Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

1. List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Siingh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rajesh Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 525 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 09.8.2023 under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. by the victim herself against the applicant alleging therein that while studying in the year 2019 she met the applicant who was the Principal of a school. They developed love relationship between them and there was physical relationship also. The applicant made a video of it. In the year 2022 she came back to her house and got married to another person. The applicant then went to her matrimonial house and disclosed about their relationship after which her married life got disturbed. She returned back to her maternal house. The applicant continuously established physical relationship with her on threat of video. She became pregnant and then the applicant was forcing her for getting it aborted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that relationship between the applicant and the victim was a consensual relationship. She was a major woman. It is argued that the F.I.R. states of relationship between the applicant and the victim was since the year 2019 but the same has been lodged after about 04 years in the year 2023. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and no such video has been recovered by the police during investigation, para-30 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-36 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.9.2023 (para-37).

¶10

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a major woman. Relationship between the victim and the applicant was since last four years which appears to be consensual in nature.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Rajesh Kumar, 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 8.12.2023/Naresh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.

Kanha @ Jayprakash Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Bipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Brajlal@ Brajpal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.