Dismissed

Satyanarayan Ram and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019BAIL/53781/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail, finding that the applicants were involved in obtaining a protection order through suppressed and forged documents in a writ petition filed by the alleged victim, whose statement established assault and molestation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Bail Application was rejected, and the prayer for anticipatory bail was not allowed.

Satyanarayan Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53781 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Satyanarayan Ram And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishal Mohan Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vishal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA.

¶6

The Court, for the purposes of evaluating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, notes that the victim who is admittedly a minor is stated to have been kept in an intoxicated state whereafter she was molested by the accused Harish Chandra. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it has come to be noted that the two applicants here were party to and had associated with the other coaccused for inducing her into a state of intoxication. More importantly the Court notes that the victim is alleged to have been duped into filing a writ petition before this Court on which initially an order of protection was accorded. On the informant coming to know of the same, an application for recall of that order was moved. The State respondents in that writ petition were thereafter directed to obtain instructions especially since it was alleged that forged and fabricated documents had been utilised for the purpose of obtaining an order from the Court. Ultimately that writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench observing as follows:-

¶7

“Learned A.G.A. has submitted that in compliance of the order dated 3.5.2019 the statement of the victim/petitioner no.1 has been

¶8

recorded on 21.5.2019 wherein she has supported the prosecution version and specifically stated that the petitioner no.2 Harishchandra claiming himself to be the husband of the petitioner no.1 in association with co-accused had enticed away against her wishes after administering some intoxicative substance as a result of which, she became insensate and unconscious. After regaining consciousness, she found herself in association of the accused petitioners no.2 to 6. The petitioner no.2 tied his marital knot with petitioner no.1 and outraged her modesty and virginity putting her in threat and intimidation.

¶9

Regard being had to the statement of the victim (petitioner no.1) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. we are of the opinion that on the dint of suppressing and twisting materials and correct facts, the petitioner nos.2 to 6 have obtained favourable order dated 3.5.2019 staying their arrest with regard to FIR dated 15.04.2019 lodged by the respondent no. 4 which was registered as Case Crime No. 0334 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar till the submission of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C, subject to restraint that they shall cooperate with the investigation. Since the petitioner nos.2 to 6 have inveigled the Court for obtaining the favourable order by distorting and manoeuvring fake and sham documents hence they do not deserve for any indulgence rather deserve to be probed for the act of cheating and fraud played upon the Court.

¶10

Accordingly, Criminal Misc. (Recall) Application No.3 of 2019 is allowed. The order dated 3.5.2019 passed in writ petition is hereby recalled and vacated. It is clarified that no order is operating in favour of the petitioner nos.2 to 6. ”

¶11

In view of the aforesaid glaring facts, the Court finds no ground to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.

¶12

The application is rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 LA/-

Satyanarayan Ram and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Ram and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetu @ Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Farhan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nafees Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Alias Rinku Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ramjalebi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.