Rahul Bind vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35638

Court No. - 35

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4549 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh Yadav,Naveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6318 of 2023.

¶7

Heard Mr. Kamal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as wellas perused the material available on record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0249 of 2022, under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the father of the victim stating therein that on 05.10.2022 at about 7.00 pm in the evening, the applicant, who is residing in the same village, has entered the house of the informant and has forcibly committed rape upon the victim aged about 24 years. It is further alleged that applicant has also made an obscene video on his mobile and viral the same. It is further alleged that when the wife of the informant went to applicant's house, the father of the applicant abused and has given threat to kill them.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. There are four accused persons including the applicant. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.10.2022 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 18.11.2022 i.e. about 18 days delayed for which no explanation has been given. He further submits that the applicant has neither committed rape upon the

¶11

victim nor he viral the obscene video. He further submits that there is no material on record to prove any obscene has been viralled, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant under Section 67 of the I.T. Act. He further submits that as per statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim is a consenting party, therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC is also made out against the applicant. He further submits that charge sheet has been submitted and there are 07 witnesses and till date, only one witness i.e. P.W.1, who is informant (father of the victim) has been examined before the trial Court, therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future.

¶12

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2022 having no previous criminal history.

¶13

Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Rahul Bind , 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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

¶17

accordance with law.

¶18

(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 her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(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., may be issued and if 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.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Krishna*

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Bind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Bind v. State of U.P.

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

Girishchandra Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Asad Alias Mohd. Ashad Alias Sebu vs State of U.P.

Jilajeet Prajapati vs State of U.P.

Ankush Sharma vs State of U.P.

Lakshman vs State of U.P.

Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.