Aman Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29328

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3496 of 2025

Applicant :- Aman Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2024, under Sections 333, 351(2), 64 B.N.S., Police Station- Sheshgarh, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forcibly entered the house of the victim in the night of 21.7.2024 and had outraged her modesty.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is major and she has not allayed any allegations of rape against the applicant. The victim as an afterthought and after legal consultation has escalated the allegations to that of rape in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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 .

¶15

Let the applicant- Aman Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶17

(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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Vikas

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

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

Aman Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhananjay Dubey vs State of U.P.

Surendra Prasad Goand and Another vs State of U.P.

Laxman vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Deepak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Azad Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others