Harendra Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16320 of 2021

Applicant :- Harendra Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Heard Shri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Harendra Rajbhar in Case Crime No. 201 of 2021, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station - Ghosi, District - Mau after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Mau vide order dated 11.8.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 28.3.2021 has been lodged by the victim stating that the applicant made physical relation in the year 2018 on false pretext of marriage. Many times family members of the applicant came to see the victim for the purpose of marriage. Sometimes they agreed to do marriage of the applicant with the victim and sometimes they did not agree. Some WhatsApp messages had been sent by the applicant to the victim. Marriage of the applicant has now been fixed with another girl and he dodged her on false pretext of marriage.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Age of the applicant was 30 years and the age of the victim was 26 years at the of lodging of the FIR. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with one Roshni on 2.5.2021 after lodging of the first information report. As per allegation of the first information report, it is admitted that the victim had love affair with the applicant. No date and time has been mentioned with regard to the offence, as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. is not made out on the pretext of promise of marriage. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 (46) SCC 742.

¶9

The applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. It is further contended that the applicant is ready to participate in the investigation. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 25.03.2022.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant, however, nothing adverse has been pointed out against the applicant.

¶11

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98 , ground for grant of ad interim anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

In case of arrest, the applicant, Harendra Rajbhar is directed to be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail till the hearing of the present application in above case crime number, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶15

(ii) 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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

¶17

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning

¶18

the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked;

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶21

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicant, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.5.2022 Ishan

¶24

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.09 10:10:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harendra Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Niwas and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tularam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Garg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Phoolendra Singh Vs State of U.P.