Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar Bansal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2023ABAIL/12593/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a FIR alleging rape and cheating. Linking to Supreme Court precedents regarding consensual relations for marriage and the requirements for bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C., the Court allowed the application subject to conditions despite not weighing the ultimate merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Sanjeev Kumar Bansal Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:226882

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12593 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Bansal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Anand Agarwal,Shreya Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Zakir

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. IInd Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 525 of 2023, under Sections 376, 406, 506 of IPC, Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the victim is stated to be sister-in-law (saali) of the applicant and he is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with her by stating that he does not like her wife and he shall keep her as wife to get the flat at Ghaziabad transferred in her name. Later on, the applicant is stated to have refused to comply with the said promise.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim and the applicant are major. The allegations stands falsified from the fact that the victim was the relative and was very well aware that the applicant was married. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgments of Apex Court passed in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting marriage cannot be termed as rape.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained in para-5 of IInd supplementary affidavit. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sanjeev Kumar Bansal involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶16

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

ii. that 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;

¶18

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶19

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar Bansal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Bansal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Mohd. Laiq @ Laiq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janu Alias Jan Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Mohd Saif Vs State of U.P.