Allowed

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2024/13898/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow allowed a bail application filed by Arun Kumar, accused of rape under Section 376 IPC. The court granted bail due to lack of corroboration, delay in FIR, and absence of tampering risk, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and seeking adjournments.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18047

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13898 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Pandey,Basant Lal Yadav,Dileep Kumar Yadav,Jaikaran,Mohammad Imaran,Sachin Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.None appears for the complainant.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 30.9.2021 at about 6.00p.m., minor daughter of the informant Rekha, aged about 15 years had gone to ease out, away from home. She did not return to home till late. Then apprehending some unprecedented incident, informant searched her, then he found her lying unconscious behind the house. On regaining consciousness after two hours, the victim told the incident to informant that the applicant has raped her after taking her into orchard.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC vary. There is improvement in the prosecution case. There is no corroborative medical evidence. Age of the victim has been found to be 18 years in the ossification test. The first information report has been lodged after five days. The victim has been examined before the trial court. There are contradictions in the statement of the victim before the trial court. The applicant is in jail since 14.10.2021.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or

¶10

tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the fact that although as per statement of the victim under section 161 CrPC, she told the incident to her parents on the same day, still the first information report has been lodged after delay of five days as also improvement made in the prosecution case, lack of corroborative evidence, the victim has been examined and there is no chance of tampering the evidence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

6. Let the applicant Arun Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.263 of 2021 under sections 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahrajganj, district Raebareli, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) 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

¶17

evidence.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Order Date :- 28.2.2024 kkb/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. U.P. Lko.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Naveen Jayaswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shivvant vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Chauhan Alias Kaaju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others