Allowed

Surendra Alias Annu Alias Surendra Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022ABAIL/10678/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a rape case. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that entering into corporeal relations on the pretext of marriage does not constitute rape. The grant was conditional upon a personal bond with sureties and adherence to specific conditions regarding investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions including availability for interrogation, non-tampering with evidence, and non-interference with prosecutio

Surendra Alias Annu Alias Surendra Kashyap Vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10678 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Alias Annu Alias Surendra Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and V.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0751 of 2022, under Sections 376, 328, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have administered some noxious material to the first informant in a cold drink and then is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with her, which had continued for four years on the pretext of marrying her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The first informant is a consenting party. The applicant has not committed any offence whatsoever. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The first informant herein is a widow and a major person and she had not got herself medically examined and the matter of consent pales into insignificance under the circumstances. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶9

Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the

¶10

judgments of Apex Court passed in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 , wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting marriage cannot be termed as rape.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-(2020) 5 SCC 1", the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant Surendra Alias Annu Alias Surendra Kashyap be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.24 09:52:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Alias Annu Alias Surendra Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Alias Annu Alias Surendra Kashyap 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shri Bhagwan Alias Shri Bhagwan Raghuvanshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devmati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.