Kapil vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50813

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6964 of 2025

Applicant :- Kapil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rafeek Ahmad Khan 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 Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.132 of 2024, under Sections 87, 64, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police StationMajhgawan, District- Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. as she had gone with the applicant all the way from Jhansi to Ahmedabad by bus and had not raised any alarm whatsoever.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is major aged about 18 years. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.9.2024 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

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

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

¶14

refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Kapil , 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.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Vikas

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

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

Kapil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lavkush vs State of U.P. Thr. Its Secretary Home Government of U.P. at Lkw and 4 Others

Aman Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jogendra Alias Jugnu vs State of U.P.

Akash Prajapati vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P.