Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 165221 (ALL)

CHHOTU @ SURENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.

BAIL/8898/2025 · 2025-09-17

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8898 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.253 of 2025 under section 333, 64(12), 115(2), 352 BNS, Police Station Biswan, District Sitapur. In the prosecution case it is alleged that It is alleged that on 11.4.2025 at about 1.00 p.m., while the daughter of the informant, aged about 16 years, was alone ab home, the applicant along with another co-accused entered the house, gagged her mouth, tore her clothes and committed rape upon her, and when she raised alarm, she was assaulted with kicks and fists. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has made improvement and introduced her younger sister at the place of occurrence. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS further improvement has been made by the victim. There is lack of corroborative material in support of the prosecution case. The victim is major, aged about 18 years as per the radiological examination. The applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 28.6.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankur Gupta, Tulsi Ram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chhotu @ Surendra Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the facts that the FIR has been lodged after delay of more than a month via application under Section 173(4) BNS, the victim is major, there are improvements in the statement of the victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS; lack of corroborative evidence and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Chhotu @ Surendra Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 accordance with law. (v) 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 him under BAIL No. 8898 of 2025 2 Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the 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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). September 17, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8898 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench