# Kamaruddin v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 37
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-13
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. First Bail Application No. 59154 of 2022
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamaruddin-v-state-of-u-p-49932
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(i) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 161 & 164 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 354,
354(ka), 366, 376, 376(d), 504 & 506 -
Application for Bail - Rape - accused
person threaten the deceased - also
tortured, abetted and recorded the illicit
video clips of the incident - victim commit
suicide - Application of Bail - ground taken
that, that in the other connected matter
to
this
case
co-accused
have
been
released on Bail - court finds that,
Incarceration in Jail has no significance
and no element in society can act in a
manner by consequence of which life or
liberty of others is Jeopardised - held, it is
not universal rule that bail should be
granted to the co-accused n the ground of
parity - Parity cannot be the sole ground
of Bail - accordingly, bail application
rejected. (Para - 12, 13)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Kamaruddin Vs. State of U.P.
37
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall appear
before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless their personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicants shall not
directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iii) The applicants shall not
indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.

43. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the prosecution will be at
liberty to move an application before this
Court for cancellation of the bail of the
applicants.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 37
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Crl. Misc. First Bail Application No. 59154 of
2022

Kamaruddin ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sushil Kumar, Sri Mukul Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(i) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 161 & 164 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 354,
354(ka), 366, 376, 376(d), 504 & 506 -
Application for Bail - Rape - accused
person threaten the deceased - also
tortured, abetted and recorded the illicit
video clips of the incident - victim commit
suicide - Application of Bail - ground taken
that, that in the other connected matter
to
this
case
co-accused
have
been
released on Bail - court finds that,
Incarceration in Jail has no significance
and no element in society can act in a
manner by consequence of which life or
liberty of others is Jeopardised - held, it is
not universal rule that bail should be
granted to the co-accused n the ground of
parity - Parity cannot be the sole ground
of Bail - accordingly, bail application
rejected. (Para - 12, 13)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., A.I.R. 2012 (SC)
830,

2. Ash Muhammad Vs Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9
S.C.C. 446,

3. Bhagat Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2009 (66) A.C.C.
859 (Alld.),

4. Ravi Khandelwal Vs St. of U.P., 2009 (67)
A.C.C. 148 (Alld.)

5. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs Pappu Yadav Vs
C.B.I., A.I.R. 2007 (SC) 451

6. Amar Nath Yadav Vs St. of Punjab & Haryana,
2009 (67) (A.C.C.) 534 Alld

7. Shah Narain Vs St. of U.P., 2009 (66) A.C.C.
189 Alld.

8. Ajmer Singh Vs St. of Har., 2010 (5) S.C.J. 451

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar, alongwith
Sri Mukul Yadav, learned counsel for the
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

2. Applicant Kamaruddin is the main
accused in Case Crime No. 594 of 2020
(S.T. No. 355 of 2021), under Section 306
I.P.C, Police Station Anoopshahar, District -
Bulandshahr.

3. The applicant has moved bail
application supported with an affidavit and
Annexures,
stating
therein
that
on
16.11.2020 at about 01:00 p.m. in the noon
informant's daughter committed suicide
after closing the door of the room hanging
upon a Kunda of room, leaving a suicide
note on the place of occurrence alleging
that the present accused-applicant and coaccused Mobin and Abrar are the reason
behind her suicidal death.

4. Earlier also F.I.R in Case Crime No.
549 of 2020, U/s 366, 376 and 354 I.P.C
was lodged by the deceased against them.

5.
After
inquest,
during
the
postmortem ligature mark in size of 29 c.m
x 2 c.m present around the neck was found.
The Doctor opined that the deceased had
died due to Asphyxia arised out of antemortem hanging. The first informant has
reiterated the version of the F.I.R in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In
suicide note it was stated that the deceased
was B.A and was the student of LL.B (Ist
Year) and applicant - accused Kamaruddin
used to come to her frequently. On
03.10.2020, when she went to the Bank, all
the accused persons carried her in a vehicle
and tried to rape her for which she had
lodged F.I.R. Later on when the applicant
made an apology and proposed that if she
gives favourable statement, he would marry
with her. Thereafter, the deceased had
given statement in favour of the applicant.
On 16.10.2020, after receiving the message
of the applicant, she came out of the village
at about 04:00 p.m. wherefrom she was
forcibly taken by the accused persons and
on the pretext of marriage, the applicant
committed rape with her and Mobin and
Abrar made a illicit video clips of the
incident and after describing fear of video
they both also committed rape with her and
left her in Kasba Chhata and also
threatened that if she lodged any case, they
would viral that video.

6. The applicant has taken ground that
there is no iota of evidence that the
applicant had tortured and abetted the
applicant. In case crime No. 505 of 2020
under Sections 506, 366 & 354 I.P.C, the
victim had denied the allegations in her
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. The applicant met to the deceased
on 03.10.2020 and thereafter an F.I.R in
Case No. 549 of 2020 under Sections 366,
376, 354 I.P.C had been lodged in which
the applicant has been released on bail by
this Court on 11.11.2022 in Criminal Misc.
bail Application No. 29731 of 2022. The
present case is connected with the above
two cases, except these cases, there is no
any criminal history to his credit. The
statement of the deceased-victim P.W. 1 in
the previous case is contrary to her
statement under Section161 Cr.P.C. After
meeting between the deceased and accused
on 03.10.2020, the deceased had committed
suicide on 16.11.2020, therefore no case of
abetment to commit suicide is made out.
Co-accused Abrar and Mobin have been
released on bail by the Apex Court and this
Court
respectively
by
orders
dated
21.11.2022 and 28.11.2022. His bail
application has been illegally rejected by
the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr vide order
dated 15.03.2022. He is in jail since
17.11.2020. He is a peace loving and law
4 All. Kamaruddin Vs. State of U.P.
39
abiding citizen, there is no likelihood of his
abscondance and tempering with the
prosecution evidence, he is ready to follow
all the conditions of bail and is ready to
fully cooperate in the trial, therefore the
bail application be allowed.

7. The learned A.G.A opposed the bail
application and argued that since long the
accused persons were committing the crime
with the deceased and had made her life
worse and hell. They used to rape her
repeatedly by showing fear of making the
video viral. For an offence of abetment to
commit suicide, now-a-days, it is not
necessary to abet such offence physically or
personally, but it can be made through
Whats-app, Face-book, E-mail etc. or
through any other way. In this case after
meeting with the deceased on 03.10.2022,
the accused-applicant used to threat her and
abated
her
for
committing
suicide,
therefore, having no any alternative, for the
sake of her dignity, respect and honour, the
deceased committed suicide. The applicant
is the main accused, therefore no parity of
grant of bail can be tendered to the
applicant.

8. After hearing the argument and after
perusal of the papers, it reveals that firstly a
case under Sections 366, 354 and 506 I.P.C
in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020 was
registered in P.S. Anoopshahar, District
Bulandshahar
against
applicant-
Kamruddin,
in
which
after
getting
assurance of the marriage, the deceased had
given a hostile statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. Later on, again an F.I.R in Case
Crime No. 549 of 2020 under Sections
366, 354-Ka, 504 and 376-D I.P.C was
registered against the applicant and the coaccused persons in the same Police Station,
in which the co-accused Abrar and Mobin
had been granted bail by another Bench of
this Court and on the basis of parity the
present applicant had also been granted bail
on 11.11.2022 by Court No. 54 of this
Court through Bail Application No. 29731
of 2022. At the time of allowing the bail,
the period of languishment in jail was also
considered, at that time the present
applicant was in jail since 17.11.2020. By
that order several conditions were imposed
upon the applicants.

9. Learned A.G.A pointed out that
conditions imposed by this Court were not
complied with by the applicant and he was
continuously tendering false promise of
marriage and by alluring her all the accused
persons
raped
her
again
and
again
thereafter the deceased came in delirious
conditions. The accused persons had
threatened the deceased that if she told
anyone about this incident, they would
make her porno-graphical videos viral.
According to the informant the deceased
had told him and her mother about the
incident that had happened with her when
she recovered.

10. Learned A.G.A also argued that
there was no enmity or ground to falsely
implicate the applicant-accused. In suicide
note the deceased has written that she was
the student of LL.B Ist Year, the accused
Kamruddin was the resident of her village,
who used to come to her house and used to
talk with her. After sometime they both
started talking through mobile as well.
Taking advantage of this, on 3.10.2020,
when she was going to Bank, Kamruddin
alongwith his friends took her in his car
and tried to forcibly rape her. Later on, he
apologized and started weeping and said
that if she did not give statement in his
favour, the matter will escalate. He will
marry with her, thereafter she stated in his
favour, after that on 16.10.2020 accused-
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kamruddin sent a message at 04:00 ''O' Clock
in the morning and called her on the road,
outside of the village, where other two persons
were also present. He took her in a car and there
Kamruddin made a relationship with her on the
pretext of marriage and said that now she might
go right now. Now none of them would do
anything, she might go anywhere. No one
would harm her, go somewhere and die. Instead
of Kamruddin, Anwar and Mobin, these three
persons also raped her and ruined her life, left
her nowhere to show her face, ruined her carrier
and her future and forced her to die and also
threatened that if any action was taken, her
video would go viral, if they would have gone
to jail. The family members and the police no
one trusts her. She had no any other way to
assure the parents. In the last line the deceased
has written that she was committing suicide and
for this Kamruddin, Anwar and Mobin were
responsible. The police was also not doing
anything. Pardon her, mom and dad SABA
(deceased).

11. Learned A.G.A argued that if
Kamruddin would not have done wrong, she
would not have committed suicide. The role of
rest two accused is much lesser and different
than the role of present accused-applicant
Kamruddin. In this case the informant has lost
his young daughter and earlier instances show
that the applicant-accused succeeded in getting
the hostile statement from the deceased under
the pressure and in the subsequent case under
Sections 366, 376, 364-B I.P.C, the conditions
imposed regarding the enlargement of bail have
been mis-utilised by the accused. (Sanjay
Chandra Vs. C.B.I A.I.R 2012 (S.C) 830.)
Except this case the accused-applicant is also
the prime accused in rest crime numbers 594 of
2020 and 505 of 2020.

12. In Ash Muhammad Vs. Shiv Raj
Singh (2012) 9 S.C.C 446, considering the
criminal antecedent, the Apex Court
cancelled the bail granted by the High
Court and observed that the concept of
personal liberty of the person is not realm
of absolutism, but is restricted one.
Incarceration in Jail has no significance and
no element in society can act in a manner
by consequence of which life or liberty of
others is Jeopardised.

13. In Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2009 (66) A.C.C 859 (Alld.) in Ravi
Khandelwal Vs State of U.P. 2009 (67),
A.C.C 148 (Alld.), and in Rajesh Ranjan
Yadav Vs. Pappu Yadav Vs. C.B.I A.I.R
2007 (S.C) 451, similar view has been
taken by the Apex Court in Amar Nath
Yadav Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana
2009 (67) (A.C.C) 534 Alld, Shah Narain
Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (66) A.C.C 189 Alld.
and Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana
(2010) (5) S.C.J. 451, that it is not the
universal rule that bail should be granted to
the co-accused on the ground of parity.
Parity cannot be the sole ground of bail, as
judge is not bound to grant bail on the
ground of parity.

14. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court finds the bail application without
any merit and is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 40
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10924 of 2019

Sanjay Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents