Allowed

Shiv Kumar v. State of Up

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024BAIL/7173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a rape case. The court applied the presumption of innocence and Article 21 principles, noting no exceptional circumstances justified denial. Bail was granted subject to personal bond and sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering evidence and attendance at trial.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Up — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124926

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7173 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Haider Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Shanker Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shyam Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.360 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Khatauli, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶9

The applicant, who happens to be relative of the informant, is stated to have video recorded the act of the victim taking bath, as such had blackmailed her and raped her several times on the pretext that he shall make them viral on social media and had even stated that he would not let her marry and kept on establishing relations with her.

¶10

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶11

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused and there is no mention of date and time of offence.

¶13

The prosecution story is false as no indecent video of the victim has been recovered from the applicant, the victim or anybody else. Even the prosecution story does not stand fortified by any medical evidence.

¶14

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against

¶15

him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶16

The criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained in paragraph-20 of the affidavit filed with bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2023 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY

¶18

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶19

CONCLUSION:

¶20

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

¶21

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶22

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence

¶24

on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant- Shiv Kumar involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶26

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶27

(ii) 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.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Vikas

¶31

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar v. State of Up

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

Anita Devi and Another vs State of U.P.

Brajesh Paliwal vs State of Up and Another

Shrikrishna Ram vs State of U.P.

Vimal Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Maurya vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ganga Charan vs State of U.P. and Another