Allowed

Tushar Thakur Alias Kartik v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025BAIL/4071/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused of rape and related BNS offences, with allegations of spiking a drink, recording the act and a botched medical termination of pregnancy. Court found no exceptional circumstances for denial and released the applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non-tampering and attendance at trial proceedings.

Tushar Thakur Alias Kartik vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58735

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4071 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Tushar Thakur Alias Kartik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 569 of 2024, U/S 64(1), 89, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Katghar. District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶11

The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that her daughter was enticed away by the applicant to a hotel and after spiking her cold drink, she was raped by him. The applicant is even stated to have video-recorded the said act and threatened her to make it viral on social media. The victim got impregnated, as such, she is stated to have been taken by the applicant to a hospital, whereby her medical termination of pregnancy was conducted but the said procedure went awry and the applicant alongwith the coaccused person left the victim unattended outside her house. The victim was taken to a Multi Specialty Hospital after her condition deteriorated.

¶12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

¶13

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶14

The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶15

The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. The truth is that the victim got impregnated and her medical termination of pregnancy was conducted but she suffered certain complications in the said procedure. The applicant did not perform the said procedure. The fault, if any, may be assigned to the doctor conducting the said procedure. The victim is major and so is the applicant and they both are almost of the same age group but still the victim had suffered due to the procedure, which went wrong.

¶16

There is a criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant, which stands explained, as the closure report has been filed in the said case and the same is filed in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

¶18

The bail application has been opposed but the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant has not been disputed.

¶19

CONCLUSION:

¶20

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the

¶24

person 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶25

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” .

¶26

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Let the applicant- Tushar Thakur Alias Kartik 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.

¶30

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶31

(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.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Shalini

¶36

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tushar Thakur Alias Kartik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Thakur Alias Kartik 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anwar vs State of U.P.

Amresh vs State of U.P.

Suryakant vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kashyap vs State of U.P.

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

Anupam vs State of U.P.