Allowed

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023BAIL/35586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 376 IPC, the court observed that the prosecutrix is a major and worked with the applicant. Considering the Love-affair and the pregnancy termination under CWC supervision, the court allowed bail without pre-judging the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant released on bail to furnish a personal bond and two sureties in the sum to the satisfaction of the subordinate court.

Sanju Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170351

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35586 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajeet Kumar Madesiya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station- Kasna, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under Section 376 IPC and according to the FIR, daughter of the informant worked as a labour with contractor Firoz where applicant was his accountant and applicant committed rape with her and due to rape committed by him, daughter of the informant also conceived.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation of rape made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and admittedly daughter of the informant i.e. victim of the case is major girl aged about 21 years and applicant and prosecutrix both worked with contractor Firoz and consensual relationship was developed between both of them and subsequently when informant came to know about the pregnancy of his daughter then he lodged the FIR of the present case against the applicant.

¶10

He further submitted that although, in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix stated that applicant committed rape with her but even from her both the statements her consent is reflected.

¶11

He further submitted that from the statements of two independent witnesses, Ram Kishan and Ravi recorded by the

¶12

Investigating Officer during investigating, who also worked with contractor Firoz, it appears that applicant and prosecutrix both loved each other, therefore, it is a case of consent.

¶13

He further submitted that when the fact of pregnancy of the prosecutrix was revealed then applicant offered for marriage but informant refused to accept his proposal and after that he lodged the FIR of the present case and under the supervision of CWC, the pregnancy of the prosecutrix was terminated and it was found that she is major girl aged about 21 years.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 18.02.2023.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is accountant while prosecutrix is poor labour and therefore, it appears that applicant misused his position but could not dispute the fact that proseutrix is a major girl and from the statements of independent witnesses, it appears that applicant and prosecutrix were having love affair.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Although, as per the allegation, applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix and due to rape committed by him, she also conceived and in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix also stated that applicant committed rape with her but admittedly prosecutrix is major girl aged about 21 years and during investigation her pregnancy was terminated with the help of CWC.

¶18

Further, from the statements of two independent witnesses, who also worked with the contractor Firoz, it reflects that applicant and prosecutrix were having love affair.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Sanju be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the

¶22

following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 KK Patel

¶29

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dharamveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustkim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yadvendra Alias Mona Vs State of U.P.

Gunakar Urf Shri Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo Vs State of U.P.