Allowed

Shyam Sundar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022BAIL/45680/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench granted bail to the applicant charged under Section 376 IPC. The court noted the relationship was consensual and the victim was a major with no medical examination sought, viewing the allegations as potentially false following refusal of marriage. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Shyam Sundar Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45680 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shyam Sundar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Shishir Singh Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 878 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, she has categorically stated that she is 22 years of age and had fallen in love with the applicant and she stayed with the applicant in a Hotel at Assam who assured him of marrying her, however subsequently, refused to marry her. As per her statement, the victim out of her own free will and consent stayed with the applicant at Dehradun for a year and was in relationship with the applicant. Even in the statement of the victim shown to be recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has categorically stated that she had fallen in love with the applicant and stayed with him in a Hotel for five days and made consensual physical relations.The applicant assured to solemnize marriage with her. She also used to meet him in a Hotel at Dehradun and made consensual physical relations with him, however subsequently, he refused to marry her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the victim even refused to get her medically examined.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 9.8.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from

¶12

judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the victim is a major girl aged about 22 years and even in her statement, she has stated that she had fallen in love with the applicant and made consensual relationship with him and she has further stated that the applicant had assured her of solemnizing marriage, however later on, refused to marry her.

¶14

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the victim had fallen in love with the applicant and had visited several places from time to time and stayed with him in a Hotel. From her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she appears to be a consensual party, however when the applicant refused to marry her, the present first information report has been lodged.

¶15

Keeping in view the fact that the victim is a major girl aged about 22 years and as per the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had fallen in love with the applicant and made consensual physical relationship and has even refused to get her medically examined. The charge sheet has already been submitted and now there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering the witnesses. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that prima facie applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Shyam Sundar Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(1). 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.

¶18

(2). 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 IPC.

¶19

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section

¶20

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 IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶23

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶25

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 KU

¶27

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.10 12:03:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Sundar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afsana Vs Mohd. Siddiq

Faizan Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Bihari and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Dilip @ Bhola Vs State of U.P.