Chand Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 21.03.2025, at about 7:30 a.m., the informant’s daughter, aged about 19 years, went to the field to ease herself. The applicant, a resident of the same village, was present in a nearby sugarcane field. It is alleged that as soon as she reached there, the applicant committed rape upon her. Upon raising an alarm by the victim, the complainant’s son and niece arrived at the spot, by which time the applicant had fled.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is a major and a consenting party, which is evident from her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, wherein she admitted that she had been in a relationship with the applicant for the past two years. Although an allegation of rape has been levelled, it is submitted that the prosecution witnesses are family members of the complainant, and while giving her statement under Section 183 BNSS, the victim made material improvements. It is further submitted that the victim was medically examined, but no abnormalities or injuries were found to support the allegations.

¶13

It is next submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of a dispute between him and the victim’s family. It is pointed out

¶14

BAIL No. 4031 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

that on 22.03.2025, due to apprehension of breach of peace, both parties were challaned under Sections 170/126/135 BNSS, and thereafter, due to that, the complainant lodged the FIR on 24.03.2025 showing the incident of 21.03.2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 25.03.2025.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

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.

¶19

Having regard to the facts that the victim is major; there is delay in lodging the FIR; there is absence of corroborative medical evidence; improvements have been made in the prosecution version; and the applicant, having no criminal antecedents, is languishing in jail since 25.03.2025, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant Chand Kumar @ Kallu involved in Case crime No.27/2025 U/S 64(1) B.N.S. P.S Gaidas Bujurg Distt Balrampur, 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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 evidence.

¶25

(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

¶26

BAIL No. 4031 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶29

(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 in accordance with law.

¶30

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

September 16, 2025 R.C.

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chand Kumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Kumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Chauhan @ Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pragyesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Aviation, Lko. and Another

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Jamal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Deptt. Lko.