Allowed

Vansh Kashyap @ Shanu v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2024/1605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenges a bail rejection order in a rape and SC/ST offence case. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the bail denial. It granted bail to the appellant on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties and specific conditions to prevent tampering and ensure appearance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each subject to conditions of cooperation, non-tampering, no intimidation, and appearance in court.

Vansh Kashyap @ Shanu Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36102

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1605 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vansh Kashyap @ Shanu Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash,Ashwani Kumar Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar,Vaibhav Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Ram Sajiwan Yadav, Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of informant/victim in the Court today, which is taken on record, and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 8757 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2023, under Sections- 376, 506 I.P.C., and Section- 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Alambagh, District- Lucknow.

¶8

While pressing the present appeal counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 .

¶9

In continuation, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is in jail since 17.06.2023, has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the entire story against the appellant, indicated by informant/ victim that the appellant established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, is false and concocted.

¶10

The F.I.R. is completely false and concocted and it is case of consent as the victim was in affair with the appellant and physical relations were established with victim's consent.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that on account of family difficulties, the appellant could not solemnize

¶12

marriage with victim, as such, the FIR against the appellant was lodged. He says that the appellant was/is always ready to solemnize marriage with victim.

¶13

He further submitted that the chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case are extremely bleak in view of the law related to establishing relationship on the pretext of false promise of marriage.

¶14

He also stated that as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC, the allegation should be to the effect that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry and from the F.I.R., it reflects that the said contents in its true spirit are missing.

¶15

He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court, as such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 stated that the appellant and victim would solemnize the marriage, if appellant is released on bail, as per instructions, and as appears from Annexure No. 5 to the present appeal.

¶17

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶18

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 17.06.2023 as also the submission that the victim was in affair with the appellant and physical relations were established with her consent and also chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶19

Order dated 06.11.2023 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 8757 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2023, under Sections- 376, 506 I.P.C., and Section- 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Alambagh, District- Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the appellant- Vansh Kashyap @ Shanu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶21

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶22

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶23

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶24

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶25

(v) The appellant 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.

¶26

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶27

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶28

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶29

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶30

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶31

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Arun/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vansh Kashyap @ Shanu v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vansh Kashyap @ Shanu v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mosim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Nagendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Sateera Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Golu @ Alok @ Alok Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Saurabh Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Homes Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Zabir Ahmad vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amethi and Others