Allowed

Nishant Nigam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2020ABAIL/4139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an applicant facing charges of rape and related offences. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including passport surrender and appearance for recording of statement without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail secured by applicant on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions including surrender of passport.

Nishant Nigam Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4139 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Nishant Nigam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh,Sujan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sujan Singh and Shri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Nishant Nigam, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2020, under Sections 376,313,323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Barra, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶11

The allegation against the applicant is that he is cousin of the informant and both are major.The informant is aged about twenty nine years and applicant is aged about twenty six years.There is allegation that he committed rape of the informant and she became pregnant.Thereafter he promised her to marry and got pregnancy terminated. He has also married the informant in temple.His

¶12

behavior has changed and he is abusing and beating her.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no mention of time the alleged offence.In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.c. informant has stated that relationship of the informant with applicant is continuing since the year 2007.In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.c.she has not specified any time when the relationship with applicant was started. It is a case of absolutely false implication of the applicant.Applicant and informant were having relationship with consent. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in this case.The allegations against the applicant are serious,therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Hence the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶16

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶18

The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶19

That 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;

¶20

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶21

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶22

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 8.12.2020

¶26

Atul kr. sri.

Nishant Nigam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant Nigam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Nadim Vs State of U.P.

Km Laxmi Kushwah Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mujibuddin Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Up and Another