Allowed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020ABAIL/3442/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 354, 354Gh, 504, and 506 IPC, imposing conditions of available for interrogation, no inducement, and permission before leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of availability, non-interference, and passport deposit.

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

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3442 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant states that he could not file the certified copy of the impugned F.I.R. and prays for exemption. The exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim is a major girl and preparing for Civil Services and she was having some affair with the applicant. There are various documents to show that they had some relationship with each other. The applicant was selected as Section Engineer in Railway and when the informant came to know about the final selection of the applicant, she immediately lodged FIR on 13.2.2020 against the applicant. An FIR has also been registered against the father and brother of the opposite party no.2 namely Satish Chandra and Sachin, Rajendra and Banti under Section 376, 354, 504, 506 IPC by one Smt. Kiran wife of Rajendra on 5.8.2019, the said fact is mentioned in para no.11 of the present anticipatory bail application. The present FIR has been lodged against the applicant just to malign his image in the society. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicant Rajeev Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.0058 of 2020, u/s 354, 354gh, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Hari Parvat, district Agra, he 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 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

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 prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 Gaurav

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Rehman Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sakshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Tiwari and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.