Allowed

Satish Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022/7578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of rape, cheating, and forgery, the High Court considered arguments from the accused and the State. The court held the case to be fit for granting bail while imposing reporting requirements and undertakings regarding court presence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting every 15 days and undertakings regarding court attendance.

Satish Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Pal Singh Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7578 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh,Jitesh Singh @ J.K.Chaudhary,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No.179 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 313, 406, 420, 494, 496, 120B IPC, 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Saadatganj, Lucknow.

¶7

3. Allegation against the accused-applicant is that the accused-applicant on the pretext of securing Government job to the prosecutrix, took Rs.15,00,000/- from her, and thereafter he had taken Rs.3,00,000/- more for his other expenses. The accused-applicant established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her. He also got her aborted on 14.11.2019. He performed false marriage and thereafter he performed marriage with one Sonia Pal.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix were having love relationship. The accused-applicant performed marriage and he has placed some photographs of the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix. He submits that since the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix belong to different religions, parents of the prosecutrix did not approve the relationship and marriage, and thereafter under the pressure of her family, she lodged the FIR and supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that it is the accused-applicant who was giving money to the prosecutrix and false allegations have been made that the prosecutrix had given Rs.18,00,000/- to the accusedapplicant. The accused-applicant has been in jail since 30.05.2022 and there is no chance of him fleeing from justice or tampering with the evidence or influencing the witness.

¶9

5. On the other hand, Mr.Brinjendra Vikram Singh, learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The accused-applicant established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her and thereafter he has

¶10

married to one Sonia Pal. He, therefore, submits that offence under Section 376 IPC is fully attracted against the accused-applicant. He is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

7. Relationship between the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix is consensual one but for some reason, the relationship could not be carried forward for long. There may be some truth in the submission of learned counsel for the accusedapplicant that since the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix belong to different community and the parents of the prosecutrix were not approving the relationship.

¶13

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶14

9. Let applicant Satish Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Pal Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall report at concerned police station on every 15th days after release from jail till the trial gets concluded.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(v) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the

¶20

trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.12.2022 prateek

¶22

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.12.02 17:11:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Durgeshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superitendent of Police Cbi/Scb

Mukesh S/O Jawahar Madeshia Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Rashid @ Abba Vs State of U.P. Through the Principal Secretary Home, civil Secretary, U.P. Government Lucknow

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Pratap Singh S/O Late Dan Pal Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Urav S/O Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.and Others

Anuradha Tiwari @ Janak Lali Vs Union of India Thru Central Bureau of Investigation New Delhi