Allowed

Nitin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022ABAIL/12821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Nitin Kumar, in a case involving offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, illicit relations, and dowry harassment, noting a compromise and lack of credible evidence.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 payable with two sureties and attached conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and commission of similar

Nitin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12821 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Sushil Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kukmar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 42 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 354, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationUtraon, District- Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. According to prosecution version, the marriage of prosecutrix was fixed with applicant and engagement has taken place on 29.02.2020 and it is alleged that thereafter, applicant took the prosecutrix to Chandrashekhar Azad Park, on pretext of visiting a temple, and there he established physical relations with her. Learned counsel submitted that alleged incident of physical relations has been shown of 20.05.2020 but first information report has been lodged after about one year by moving an application under Section 156 (3). Further, after the engagement, a compromise has taken place between both the parties and all the presents/articles of the family of prosecutrix were returned to

¶8

them. The copy of said compromise is annexed as Annexure-3. Referring to statement of prosecutrix, under Section 164 CrPC, it was submitted that the allegation of prosecutrix that applicant has took the prosecutrix to Chandrashekhar Azad Park and there he established physical relations with her, is thoroughly false and improbable. It was submitted that the prosecutrix is a mature lady, aged about 23 years, and that the first information report of this case has been lodged with intention to exert undue pressure upon applicant. It was further submitted that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Nitin Kumar in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.11.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.19 16:32:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit @ Rahul vs State of U.P.

Sugendra Vs State of U.P.

Nikhil Raikawar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wakeel Maurya Vs State of U.P.