Allowed

Harishchandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024/10031/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of rape and related offenses under Sections 376, 450, 504, and 506 IPC. The court noted a substantial delay in lodging the FIR and the existence of prior marriage negotiations, concluding that releasing the applicant would not adversely affect the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Harishchandra released on bail by personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions of attendance, non-commission of similar offenses, and non-interference with witn

Harishchandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66731

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10031 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harishchandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Divedi,Arti Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State; Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.273 of 2024, under Section 376, 450, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Shivgarh, District Rae Bareli.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR registered on 20.07.2024 it was alleged that the informant and the applicant were intending to marry for which talks had taken place since when the victim met the applicant and they both started visiting each other's place. It was alleged that on 06.04.2024 at about 1 pm when the victim was alone at home, the applicant came and committed wrong on her and a video was also made and subsequently, on the threat of making the video viral, on several occasions, rape was committed. A similar statement was given under Section 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS.

¶9

4. In the light of the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR in question was lodged after about 3 and 1/2 months. He draws my attention to the statement of the father of the victim which is on record wherein he stated that the daughter was working with the applicant and subsequently, there was some dispute and the victim came back. It was also stated that the applicant used to regularly visit and a Court marriage was also done and for formal marriage, November 2024 was fixed and as because of the Court marriage, the family was facing social stigma, the applicant and the victim were refused to stay at their home and both of them thereafter went together to Delhi. A similar statement was given by sisterin-law of the victim which is on record as Annexure - 7. The medical of the victim was done after 3 and 1/2 moths which naturally would not corroborate any allegation of force being used.

¶10

5. In the light of the said, it is argued that the applicant who is in custody since 08.08.2024 may be enlarged on bail. As

¶11

regards the criminal antecedent, the applicant was linked in Case Crime No.278 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376, 344 & 506 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of POCSO Act in which the applicant was enlarged on bail on 30.07.2021. He lastly argues that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents.

¶12

6. Learned counsel for the informant strongly opposes the bail application by arguing that the investigating authorities were won over by the applicant and a shoddy investigation was carried. He specifically denies that the marriage agreement relied upon by the applicant is a fake agreement. He further argues that the statement of the father and the sister-in-law was also recorded under the influence of the applicant. He lastly argues that the applicant is habitual of similar offence as is clear from earlier Case Crime No.278 of 2019, thus, considering these facts, the bail applications deserves to be rejected.

¶13

7. Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that as per the two statements, wrong was committed on the victim. He states that the investigating officer had recorded the two statements which are on record as Annexures - 6 & 7 which are also a part of the case diary. In sum and substance, he argues that the bail application may be rejected in view of the two statements of the victim which are on record which corroborate the allegations.

¶14

8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the entire case is premised on the foundation that although further talks of marriage were happening, the applicant allegedly came and committed wrong on the victim against her consent; the statement of father and sister-in-law on record clearly suggests that the applicant and the victim were staying together at Delhi and the marriage was sought to be formally solemnized in November, 2024.

¶15

9. Considering the two statements and there being substantial delay in lodging the FIR coupled with the fact that the age of the victim is around 23 years; the earlier criminal antecedents of the applicant are of the year 2019 and the present case is to be established based upon the evidence led at the time of trial, I do not see any reason to form a view that the applicant, if enlarged on bail at this stage, can in any way adversely affect the trial, as such, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶16

10. Let the applicant Harishchandra be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.9.2024

¶21

nishant

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harishchandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suhail Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sundarpata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Gullu @ Vijay Bahadur Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

M/S Raj Exports Thru. Proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar(Borrower) and Another vs Capri Global Capital Ltd. Mumbai Having Branch Office,New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer and 2 Ors.

Shivsewak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Mobin Adees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko