Allowed

Prince Alias Prince Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023/11899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant charged with rape and cheating for false promise of marriage. The court held that insisting on marriage under bail jurisdiction is impermissible and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail under Sections 376, 406 IPC by furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties with conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Prince Alias Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46967

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11899 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Prince Alias Prince Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Krishana Kumar Singh,Parmatma Prasad Singh,Satish Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manisha Trivedi,Vanshraj Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

2 . The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the applicant on the false pretext of marriage was engaging with the victim and developed physical relation.

¶8

3 . The Counsel for the applicant argues that even as per the FIR version, the applicant and the victim stayed together for a period of one and a half year. The Counsel for the applicant invited the attention of this Court to the fact that earlier the applicant was enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 19.04.2023 mainly on the ground that he would settle the dispute with the prosecturix after coming out from jail. A statement was also recorded that she was ready and willing to go with the applicant. The Court had recorded the consent of the applicant that he will get the marriage with the prosecturix.

¶9

4. The Counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant was enlarged on bail, however, he could not marry the prosecutrix and now he has filed an affidavit that he is ready and willing to marry the victim, if he is enlarged on bail.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. and the Counsel for the complainant opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

6. The Counsel for the complainant places reliance on the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Suren Orang vs State of Assam; 2005 Cri.L.J. 3402 wherein the Court had considered the cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage. The said case

¶12

will have no applicability to the fact of the present case, as in the present case, the charge has been framed on the ground of false promise of marriage.

¶13

7. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra , (Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.2712 of 2019, decided on 21.08.2019, wherein, the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the scope of consent and noticed the scope of phrase 'misconception of fact'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically referred to the judgment of Anurag Soni vs the State of Chhattisgarh; (2019) 13 SCC 1 to discern the nature of misconception of fact.

¶14

8. In view of the said judgment coupled with the fact that this Court cannot insist for marriage to the victim in exercise of bail jurisdiction coupled with the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents and is in custody 06.09.2022 except the period in which he was on interim bail as well as the fact that the applicant had not misused the liberty of bail when he was on interim bail, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

10. Let the applicant Prince @ Prince Singh be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.60 of 2022, under Sections 376, 406 IPC, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 akverma

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prince Alias Prince Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Alias Prince Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

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

Munendra @ Nanhkey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Vikas Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Ram Naresh @ Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko

Ajay Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary (Home ) Goverment of U.P Civil Secretariat

Raja Alias Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Lavkush Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others