Allowed

Atul Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2021CRLA/2976/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 2976 of 2021, the Special Court at Allahabad allowed the appeal against the rejection of bail. The court set aside the bail rejection order, drawing a distinction based on the consensual nature of the relationship established by the facts. Bail was granted to the appellant subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; impugned order set aside.

Atul Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2976 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Atul Shukla Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jata Shankar Pandey,Neeraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by appellant Atul Shukla against the impugned order dated 15.07.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad passed in Bail Application No.3331 of 2021 (CNR No. UPAD-001006083-2021(Atul Shukla vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.197 of 2021, under Sections 376(2)N, 493, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶7

The FIR itself shows that the respondent no.2 was in relation with the appellant from January, 2020 and they continued talking on phone and meeting with each other. Respondent no.2 trusted on the appellant and on his promise to marry her and, therefore, they continued in physical relationship and during the period, she got pregnant twice and on both occasions, the appellant got her abort. Thereafter, the appellant left Prayagraj and went somewhere else.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR version itself shows the consensual relationship between both the sides, which continued for a long period. It has been further submitted that the age of the respondent no.2 has been found to be 20-25 years and as she was a consented party, therefore, the accusation of rape appears to be an afterthought. It has been also submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the learned Special Judge did not consider the material aspect of the case and he wrongfully rejected the bail application and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the relationship between both took place simply because the appellant had promised to marry with her but he did not go by his own promise.

¶10

Considered the submissions of both the sides. It appears to be a case of

¶11

consensual relationship, which continued for a very long time and FIR appears to have been lodged only when as per FIR allegation the appellant went away and the respondent no.2 found that he is not likely to marry with her. As such, I find that the learned Special Judge has committed error in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶12

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 15.07.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad is set aside.

¶13

Let appellant-applicant Atul Shukla be released on bail in Bail Application No.3331 of 2021 (CNR No. UPAD-001006083-2021(Atul Shukla vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.197 of 2021, under Sections 376(2)N, 493, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶15

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.9.2021

¶19

Mini

Atul Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Durgawati Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Maddheashiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinay Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

K. K. Sharma ( Krishna Kumar Sharma ) Vs State of U.P.

Subodh Kumar@ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another