Vipin Gautam Alias Kallu vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87128

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9237 of 2025

Applicant :- Vipin Gautam Alias Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

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

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2025, U/S 123, 64(1), 351(2) B.N.S. and 66(E) of Information Technology Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have spiked the tea of the victim rendering her unconscious on 30.10.2024 at about 9.00 pm and committed rape with her. There are allegations that the applicant had recorded the indecent act and clicked certain photographs of her and blackmailed her to make it viral.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 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. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶11

FIR is delayed by about 80 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no recovery of any indecent video or photograph from the applicant or any other person, whatsoever. The provision of I.T. Act has been removed by the investigating officer.

¶12

Learned counsel has further argued that the victim is major, being 20 years old. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶13

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.1.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR, there being no medical corroboration of the incident and there being no recovery of any video or photograph, 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 .

¶16

Let the applicant- Vipin Gautam Alias Kallu 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.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Shalini

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

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

Vipin Gautam Alias Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Gautam Alias Kallu 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

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P at Lucknow and 3 Others

Sonu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sajid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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