SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Rakesh @ Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 2858 of 2024
Decided on : 01-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Mishra

The consensual nature of a relationship and the lack of evidence can be considered as grounds for granting bail in cases involving serious charges.

Headnote:

Bail - Section 376(2) N, 506 I.P.C. - Applicant granted bail based on consensual relationship and lack of evidence

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a bail application in a case involving allegations of Section 376(2) N and 506 I.P.C. The victim and the applicant had a consensual relationship, and the victim later married someone else, leading to the filing of the first information report.

Finding of the Court:

The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted bail to the applicant based on the consensual nature of the relationship, lack of evidence, and the prolonged incarceration of the applicant.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail in a case involving serious charges of sexual assault and criminal intimidation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the consensual nature of the relationship, lack of evidence, and the prolonged incarceration of the applicant as grounds for granting bail.

Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.280 of 2023, under Section 376(2) N, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.

3. As per FIR allegation, marriage between applicant and victim was settled by both families, thereafter, applicant and victim developed physical relationship and after sometime, marriage was not materialized. The victim married to some other person thereafter first information report was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. From the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that victim was in consensual relationship with applicant. From the statement of husband and other witnesses, it appears that there is no video or audio evidence as alleged in the F.I.R.. The Investigating Officer has also not recorded any electronic evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.11.2023 and in case, he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused 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.

7. Let the applicant, Rakesh @ Rakesh Kumar, who is involved in the aforesaid 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.

    (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed. 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.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top