Rachit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26841

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3533 of 2024

Applicant :- Rachit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. Shri Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.44/2024, under Section 314 IPC, Police Station Haiderabad, District Kheri.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that from the perusal of the FIR dated 13.02.2024 it reveals that the allegations made by the complainant was that her granddaughter, who is aged 19 years, was in a romantic affair with the applicant. It is further stated that on the given date i.e. 13.02.2024, the victim suffered pain in her stomach and when the complainant asked the victim about it then she revealed that she was three months pregnant. It is alleged that the victim had also informed the complainant that the applicant had given her some abortive pills which she had consumed. At this the complainant took the victim to the hospital but just before reaching the hospital the victim died and thus the FIR was lodged.

¶9

The submission is that it is the version of the complainant that the applicant was in a romantic affair with the victim. He further submitted that in the postmortem report, there is no indication that any kind of such abortive piles terminating the pregnancy was taken by the victim nor any material to suggest that it was given by the applicant.

¶10

It is also urged that it is merely on the statement of the complainant that the applicant has been apprehended. The applicant has no criminal history and is now in jail since 14.02.2024.

¶11

It has further been pointed out that the applicant had filed a supplementary affidavit to bring on record the copy of the statement given by the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the subsequent statement where the complainant had changed her version which also causes doubt on the authenticity. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no basis to rely upon the credibility of the allegations and in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail and submitted that there was clear evidence regarding wrapper of the abortive pills which links the version as mentioned in the FIR to the applicant. It is further urged that since the investigation is still going on and in the aforesaid circumstances the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has also argued on the aforesaid parameters.

¶14

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record and finds that apparently at this stage there is nothing on record which suggest that the cause of death was the alleged abortive pills. Moreover from the postmortem report also do not corroborate the said version. The statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was recorded at the first instance and the supplementary statement at the later stage which show the discrepancies and the Court also noticing that the applicant is merely 20 years and has no other criminal history.

¶15

This Court finds that whether the applicant gave the said abortive pills or whether it was the cause of death of the victim is all set to be tested in trial. Accordingly, considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Rachit Kumar involved in FIR/Case Crime No.44/2024, under Section 314 IPC, Police Station Haiderabad, District Kheri be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶18

(i) 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

(ii) 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

(iii) 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

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rachit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Faisal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Nand Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Harishankar @ Dahpel and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others