Allowed

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023ABAIL/11350/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused facing charges of rape and intimidation. The application for bail was granted till the conclusion of the trial, citing Supreme Court precedents that bail need not be time-bound. The applicant was directed to execute a personal bond with sureties and adhere to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till the conclusion of the trial. Personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount executed with prescribed conditions.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209041

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11350 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Anchal Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Satish Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 80 of 2023, under sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Peepiganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused applicant, who happens to be a cousin, brother-in-law (dewar) of the prosecutrix developed some physical relationship and sexually exploited her on false pretext of marriage but subsequently, he refused to marry with the prosecutrix. F.I.R. was lodged on 11.03.2023 and after investigation, now charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that no physical exploitation or rape was committed by the present applicant with the prosecutrix of this case. It is next submitted that the prosecutrix of this case is a major lady and the material on record shows that physical relations, if any, were made out of the consent and willingness of the prosecutrix herself. It is further submitted that as per statement of the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the physical relation between the two continued for a period of more than four years and it is very strange that during this long span of time, the prosecutrix never made any complaint to anyone of his family and continued with the relationship. It is further submitted that the applicant no doubt had a friendly relation with the prosecutrix but no physical

¶10

relations took place between the two. It is next submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version as internal and external examination has been denied by the prosecutrix herself. It is also submitted that no offence has been committed by the present applicant. It is next submitted that the accused applicant moved a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5402 of 2023 before this Court wherein a protection order till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was granted in his favour vide order dated 16.05.2023 and the said liberty was never misused by him at any stage of the investigation. It is further submitted that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial court. It is also submitted that after submission of the charge sheet, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made a categorical statement that the applicant forcefully exploited the victim sexually and he also tried to blackmail her on the basis of some obscene photographs and videos of the victim. It is further submitted that offence committed by the applicant is very grave and serious and as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the present matter, protection order was granted in favour of the present applicant during the course of investigation and the said liberty was never misused by him. After filing of charge sheet, now no custodial interrogation is required from the accused applicant.

¶13

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the

¶16

applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶17

Hence, 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶18

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant 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 concerned with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) 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.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) 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.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Shivangi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Vijendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Govind Prasad Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ansarul Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nafees Vs State of U.P.