Allowed

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023ABAIL/12806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to Ram Kumar, accused in a Section 376 IPC case for a physical relationship on pretext of marriage. The High Court allowed bail on bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in like amount.

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12806 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena,Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Sri Rahul Gaur and Sri Bhishm Pal Singh, Advocates have filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0929 of 2022, under Section 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Auraiya, District- Auraiya, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

As per the prosecution case applicant performed physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage but later he had refused to marry her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the victim is a major girl and she willingly entered into physical relationship with the applicant before her marriage. It is also submitted that the victim in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she has married the accused in a temple and has a daughter from the accused. An affidavit is also annex alongwith the supplementary affidavit, in which the victim has stated that she does not want to proceed any case against the applicant and he has not done any wrong with her. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. It is next submitted that the applicant is a police constable and has no previous criminal history and he undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Ram Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

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.

¶19

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶20

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;

¶21

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Abhishek Singh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Prince Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Xxxx- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahseen Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Shailendra Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another