Allowed

Hariram @ Hariya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023ABAIL/2429/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a rape case, the Single Judge allowed the plea without evaluating merits, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The petitioner was to be released on a personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

Hariram @ Hariya Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170968

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2429 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Hariram @ Hariya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shanker,Anshul Tiwari,Sr. Advocate,Vartika Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vartika Singh and Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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 Complaint Case No. 1253 of 2022, under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC, Police Station Jariya, District Hamirpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the wife of the complainant after barging into his house on 18.05.2020 at about 04:30 PM.

¶10

Learned Senior 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 Senior Counsel has further stated that the complaint case was filed belatedly on 10.06.2020 which is after the delay of about 22 days. The present complaint case does not stand substantiated by any evidence whatsoever and the same is a counterblast on two grounds:- (i) that an application was given by the applicant Hariram @ Hariya regarding outraging the modesty of her daughter by the complainant on 25.08.2010 at the same police station and the parties had settled the issue thereat which was filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed along with anticipatory bail application and (ii) the complainant had again committed the offence of outraging the modesty of his niece on 16.03.2016 and the FIR was instituted against him on 19.03.2016 and after thorough investigation, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in it and the wife of the applicant Smt. Ram Murti has been arrayed in the list of the witnesses in the said final report at S.No.5. Learned Senior Counsel has also stated that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 02.03.2023 and has not misused it and is ready to cooperate in future as well.

¶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 applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application

¶12

of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that there are injuries sustained by the wife of the complainant although the same are simple in nature. Learned counsels has also not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Hariram @ Hariya 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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;

¶19

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

¶20

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;

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 Siddhant

¶25

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

Hariram @ Hariya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram @ Hariya 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

Aditya Kumar Mishra @ Shiv Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Verma and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.

S.M. Tariq Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.