Allowed

Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023BAIL/7351/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. allowed a bail application filed by Vimal Kumar in a case concerning alleged rape and alleged abetment to suicide. The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including delayed FIR and lack of injury evidence. Bail was granted subject to bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Agra, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attending court and cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7351 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mayank,Abhishek Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Sarvesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dashrath Lal

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Vimal Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No 379 of 2021, under Sections 376, 306 IPC, police station Bhogaon district Mainpuri, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, father of deceased gave an application dated 13.09.2021 to the police informing that on account of some unknown reason, his daughter has committed suicide on 13.09.2021 at 2 o'clock. The said information was registered at GD No. 13 at 16:18 o'clock on 13.09.2021, which has been brought on record as Annexure no. 1 to the bail application. On the said information, inquest proceeding was conducted and thereafter postmortem of the deceased was done on 14.09.2021, in which ligature mark has been found around the neck of the deceased. After about 18 days of the incident, mother of the victim lodged FIR on 01.10.2021 with regard to an incident which took place 13.09.2021 against the present applicant Vimal Kumar and coaccused Shubham with allegation inter-alia that on 12.09.2021 at about 8:30 pm, co-accused Shubham took her daughter to his house on the pretext to apply heena to his mother, where applicant and coaccused Shubham committed rape on her, and after that, they left her daughter at 11:30 pm to her house. FIR further alleges that since her daughter was scared under the threat, therefore, she did not

¶8

tell anything to her. On the next date i.e. 13.09.2021, she committed suicide. When her post-mortem was done, she came to know that rape was committed with her daughter.

¶9

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that father of the deceased has given an information on 13.09.2021 immediately after the incident in which he did not make allegation of rape with his daughter. In the post-mortem report, except the ligature mark, no other injury was found on the body of victim. It is next argued that after 18 days of the incident, FIR has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused Shubham for the alleged offence under Section 376-D and 306 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act. Referring the contents of the FIR, it is argued that the informant who is mother of victim has admitted this fact that the victim had not told her about the alleged incident of rape with her. It is also pointed out that informant, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has reiterated the FIR version but lastly she has stated inter-alia that she believes that some misdeed was committed with her daughter. Much emphasis has given by contending that the informant in her second statement dated 10.12.2021 has stated that after the incident her relative Umakant took her to a counsel thereafter on the advice of the counsel, she lodged FIR, therefore, some delay took place in lodging the FIR. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the co-accused Shubham has been exonerated by the investigating ofÏcer after culmination of investigation. There is no material evidence on record to constitute an offence under Section 376, 306 IPC against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 04.10.2021 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in fact victim was raped by the applicant and coaccused Shubham, therefore, she committed suicide

¶11

but they did not dispute the factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is the case of the prosecution that after post-mortem of the dead body, mother of the victim came to know that her daughter was raped whereas no positive opinion has been given in the post-mortem report with regard to the allegation of rape on the deceased. From the statement of Dr. Monika Gupta, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 02.12.2021, I also find that she has clearly stated that during her examination, no spermatozoa was found. During investigation, as per education certificate of the deceased, it is found that she was aged about 19 years 04 months and 07 days, therefore, charge sheet was not submitted for the offence under POCSO Act. There is no material evidence on record regarding abetment and instigation on the part of the applicant to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC. The FIR has been lodged after about 18 days with the consultation of an advocate, as stated by the informant in her second statement, as noted above, therefore, possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Vimal 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:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly

¶16

attend the court unless inevitable.

¶17

(ii) That 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 Satish

¶22

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

Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal 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

Amit @ Mitthu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Yatendra Vs State of U.P.

Sukhveer Singh Vs State of U.P.