Allowed

Mukul Pathak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023BAIL/6934/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application was allowed. The court found the applicant a fit case for release on bail, citing the complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents regarding false fiction of marriage in rape cases, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Mukul Pathak was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6934 of 2023 Applicant :- Mukul Pathak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlendra Tripathi,Devesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 584 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Vrindavan, District- Mathura, during the pendency of trial.

¶5

As per prosecution story, the applicant and the victim came into contact through social media about last three years before the offence. The applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the victim on the pretext of marrying her but later on he refused to marry her. The applicant is stated to have even called her on 17.03.2022 and has forced her to enter into corporeal relationship with him otherwise he threatened to upload the indecent photographs and videos of the victim on social media.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has also stated that the FIR is delayed with respect to the said offence. The victim is a consenting party. As per her High School Certificate, her date of birth is 25.05.2000 which comes out at 19 years on the date of the alleged offence. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgements of Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting marriage cannot be termed as rape. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2022 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and

¶7

shall cooperate with the trial.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed . Let the applicant Mukul Pathak involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.2.2023/Mohini

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukul Pathak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Pathak 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amit @ Pavva Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Amar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Manjesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Pal Vs State of U.P.