Allowed

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2024/272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the bail refusal in an IPC and SC/ST Act case. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding false promises of marriage and found the appeal meritorious, setting aside the impugned order and granting bail on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail refusal order set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties with specific conduct conditions.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35587

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 272 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Faizal Hashmi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kapil Dev Chaubey,Vijai Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 despite service of notice, as appears from letter of C.J.M, concerned in this regard. However, the names of Sri Kapil Dev Chaubey, Advocate and Sri Vijai Kumar Shukla, Advocate are shown in the cause list, as counsel for the respondent No. 2. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶7

Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 03.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 117 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 595 of 2023, under Sections- 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rudauli, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶9

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 .

¶10

In continuation, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is in jail since 17.11.2023, has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the entire story against the appellant, indicated by the informant and victim and that the appellant established physical relations with victim on the pretext of marriage, is false and concocted.

¶11

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 and for some reasons, their relationship could not continue and as such to pressurize the appellant as also to get financial benefits from the State Exchequer, the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 17.11.2023 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 .

¶18

Order dated 03.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 117 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 595 of 2023, under Sections376, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rudauli, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the appellant- Pawan Kumar 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 :-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 8.5.2024 Arun/-

¶31

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

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Dharmanand and ORS.3 Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kamla Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Shivam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Dileep Singh Son of Ram Gopal Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Ameen Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

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