Allowed

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023BAIL/3423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Sanjay Kumar challenging his arrest in a case involving ranging from rape to cheating. The court heard arguments regarding inconsistencies in the complaint and lack of force in alleged relations. Bail was allowed on personal and local sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and appearing in court.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3423 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Syed Riyaz Askari, holding brief of Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant is that on 10.03.2021, the applicant along with co-accused Anil Kumar came to her house and that the applicant had showed his Identity card and Adhar card for the purpose of solemnisation of marriage with her, thereafter engagement ceremony was also conducted. On the pretext of purchasing Fortuner vehicle Rs. 8,50,000/- was also given, thereafter, Rs. 5 lacs was also demanded and on suspicion, when they reached the house of the applicant it was made known that identity card belongs to some person and is engage in fudging the innocent person. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10.03.2021 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 15.04.2022 without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay of 35 days. He next submits that perusal of the contents of F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim/informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that the victim and her family members have been victimised of forgery and cheating whereas, the victim is her subsequent ( Majeed ) statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has improvised the story stating therein that after engagement ceremony, the applicant came to her house on 05.04.2021 and

¶7

had stayed for two days and had developed physical relations with her. Learned counsel next argued that even if the contents of subsequent statement of the victim with respect to physical relation is taken to be true for the sake of argument, even then no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out for the reason that there is no use of force and at the most it may be said to be a consenting party. Learned counsel further submits that though the marriage talks were going on between the parties but the same could not be materialised due to refusal of the informant side as well as sad demise of mother and father of the applicant. He next submits that thereafter the applicant had solemnised marriage with another lady and since the applicant did not marry with the informant therefore, the ingredients of Section 494 I.P.C., is also not attracted. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 19.07.2022.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of

¶10

evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Sanjay Kumar involved in Case Crime No.86 of 2022 under Sections 376, 420, 406, 494, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.

¶16

E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 S.Ali

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sujan Sarkar Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Monish @ Mohnishkant Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Dr Kamlesh Kumar Bharti @ Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.