Allowed¶13

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2020ABAIL/1174/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 438 CrPC; Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC; Section 67(A) Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008; Case Crime No. 02 of 2020; P.S. Mahila Thana, District Varanasi; Amit Kumar; Rajiv Joshi, J.; consensual relationship; criminal history of 14 cases not a relevant factor; personal bond Rs. 25,000 with two sureties; investigation to conclude within three months; Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019 Cri LJ 1169).

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, applicant Amit Kumar to be released on bail till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the stated conditions; default entitles the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation. ¶13

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Amit Kumar, arraigned in Case Crime No. 02 of 2020 (P.S. Mahila Thana, District Varanasi), is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during pendency of investigation.

¶7

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the applicant was held entitled to be released on anticipatory bail, taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest, the applicant Amit Kumar shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of the police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (availability for interrogation; no inducement, threat or promise; no departure from India without permission and deposit of passport).

¶14

Key takeaways

The contention that the applicant has a criminal history of 14 cases was rejected as not a relevant factor for consideration of the present anticipatory bail application.ratio¶12
The Court recorded that the learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant failed to controvert that the applicant and opposite party no.2 developed relations out of their free will.ratio¶11
The Investigating Officer was directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously, preferably within three months from production of a certified copy of the order, independently and without being prejudiced by any observation made by the Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granted. Applicant (stated to be an Inspector posted at Koshikala, District Mathura) sought pre-arrest bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2020, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Varanasi, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, during pendency of investigation. Photographs indicated the relationship with the informant developed with her consent; the A.G.A. and informant's counsel failed to controvert that relations were formed out of free will; the alleged criminal history of 14 cases was held not a relevant factor. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, bail granted till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, with standard conditions; investigation to be concluded preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1174 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,Anshul Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri A.B. Maurya, Advocate on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 02 2020 under sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 (A) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Varanasi, during pendency of investigation.

¶8

As per F.I.R., the applicant in the capacity of Inspector posted at Koshikala, District Mathura came to the house of first informant as there was some quarrel between the informant with another person. Subsequently, the applicant visited the house and relations were developed between the applicant and opposite party no.2. From photographs appended at page 113-126, it is apparent that the informant has love affairs with the applicant and from her own consent, relations were developed.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 (A) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 against the applicant, is made out and the applicant has falsely and deliberately been implicated in the present case. If he released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the investigation.

¶10

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon paragraph 20 and 21 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2019 CRI. L. J. 1169.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informantopposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for granting bail but failed to controvert that both the applicant and opposite party no.2 have developed relations out of their free will.

¶12

It is further contended by learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 that applicant have criminal history of 14 cases. But I do not find that are relevant factors for consideration of the present case.

¶13

Taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Amit Kumar involved in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.

¶15

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.1.2020

¶22

Noman

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rayal Yadav and 2 Otehrs Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Bhikhari Alias Bheekam Vs State of U.P.

Sevti Alias Seti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Shanker Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P.