Ram Nandan @ Ram Nandan Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172108

Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6486 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Nandan @ Ram Nandan Chaudhary And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.329 of 2022, registered under Sections 493, 313, 323, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Naini, District- Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the son of the applicants is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the informant herein on the false promise of marriage for a period of about five years. During the said period, the son of the applicants is stated to have got terminated her pregnancy twice.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The victim was a consenting party. The victim herself is a married lady and she used to file frivolous FIRs and complaint against several persons. The applicants are the parents of the main accused person. Learned counsel has further 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 married cannot be termed as rape. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest.

¶11

Learned counsel has stated that the applicants undertake that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

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 applicants.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Ram Nandan @ Ram Nandan Chaudhary and Sushila Devi @ Meena Devi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

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

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.8.2023/Vikas

¶24

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Nandan @ Ram Nandan Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nandan @ Ram Nandan Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Indradev Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avadhesh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others