Allowed

Keshav Sharma v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2023ABAIL/3817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. A.B. No. 3817 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court allowed an application by applicant Keshav Sharma seeking anticipatory bail in a Section 506 Bengal Police Station case. The court relied on precedents regarding consent in alleged relationships before granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial granted on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance, tampering, and foreign travel.

Keshav Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3817 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Keshav Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Navin Kumar,Sudhir Mehrotra,Suyash Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 953 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant and the informant are stated to be the constables at the same police station i.e. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar. The informant is stated to have entered into a family dispute with her husband, as such, a divorce petition was pending between them. The applicant is stated to have lured the informant and fleeced and fooled her on the pretext that he shall marry her after the said divorce petition, and as such, had entered into corporeal relationship with her. On the brink of the said dissolution of the said marriage, the informant is stated to have asked the applicant to prepare for the marriage to which he had refused plainly and had also categorically stated that he shall make viral the said chatting recorded and the photographs of the informant with him. There are also allegations against the applicant terminating the pregnancy of the informant out of the said corporeal relationship.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has stated

¶9

that the matter is of consent and without divorce petition the applicant could not marry her. Learned counsel has stated that both the applicant and the informant are major persons and the said case is of consensual relationship. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant had filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the proceedings were stayed but in light of the judgement of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299, the said stay stood vacated and the said petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is still pending.

¶10

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 applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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 and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

On due consideration to 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

¶15

allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Keshav Sharma 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;

¶21

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Shalini

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Keshav Sharma v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Sharma 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

Gangotri Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwin Tripathi Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Mahendra Kumar Sahu @ Rinku and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Narayan Vs State of U.P.

Yadav Ram Yadav Vs State of U.P. State of U.P. and Another

Mukul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others