Palvinder Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17958

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 273 of 2024

Applicant :- Palvinder Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manjusha Kapil

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

In pursuance of earlier order of this Court, the Investigating Officer of the case, namely, Shri Ram Milan Yadav, is personally present before this Court with up to date case diary and he has also placed extract of the case diary for perusal of this Court, which has been taken on record including the transcript of a Qubulanama made by the prosecutrix.

¶7

It is informed by him that charge sheet with regard to the other co-accused, namely, Sukhvant Singh has been filed and the investigation with regard to the instant applicant- Palvinder Singh is pending.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned counsel appearing for the victim/ informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This is the second anticipatory bail application moved by the accused-applicant- Palvinder Singh in Case Crime No. 0627 of 2023, under Sections 376-D/ 377/ 342/ 420/ 406/ 323/ 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case, as his first anticipatory bail application has been dismissed by this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has earlier approached this Court by filing an Application bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3073 of 2023 and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2024. However, after dismissal of the said

¶11

application, new circumstances have emerged and on the basis of these new circumstances, this second anticipatory bail application is being moved before this Court.

¶12

Elaborating further, it is submitted that the prosecutrix has filed an affidavit addressed to the D.G.P. of the State, copy of which has also been sent to various authorities including the Investigating Officer and S.S.P. concerned alleging therein that she was in love with the applicant, however, her marriage was solemnized with one Gurpreet Singh against her wishes and soon after the marriage, her husband had gone to 'Oman' and whenever he came to India, his behaviour become cruel towards the prosecutrix and he was also aware of the relationship of the prosecutrix with the applicant and it was under the pressure applied by her husband, she had given an application in the concerned police station, whereon the instant case was registered and it was on 25.01.2024, she finding an opportunity has left her matrimonial home and had gone to the office of the S.P. Shahjahanpur and had given an application also to the Investigating Officer that she do not want any action to be taken against the applicant.

¶13

While drawing the attention of this Court towards an acknowledgement/ Qubulnama made by the prosecutrix, which is part and parcel of the case diary, it is submitted that the statement, which prosecutrix has given in the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was given by her under the pressure applied by the husband and his family. Now, she do not want any action to be taken against the applicant.

¶14

It is vehemently submitted that the instant case is nothing but a bundle of lies and the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged under the instructions given by the husband of the prosecutrix while no such incident had occurred and the same has been acknowledged by the prosecutrix in the Qubulnama / acknowledgement and affidavit given to the various authorities including the Investigating Officer.

¶15

It is further submitted that applicant would cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence would be required.

¶16

Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned counsel appearing for the

¶17

informant/ victim, while drawing the attention of this Court towards the short counter affidavit filed by the victim/ informant, submits that a wrong information was given by the prosecutrix to the police station concerned under the pressure of her husband and her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C were also given while she was under threat of her husband while no such incident, as shown in the F.I.R. as well as in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., had occurred and the prosecutrix do not want any action to be taken on her F.I.R. and she is not having any objection if the facility of anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of second anticipatory bail moved by the applicant on the ground that first anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court and there is no new ground emerging thereafter.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the record and keeping in view the acknowledgement/ Qubulnama given by the prosecutrix to the Investigating Officer as well as an affidavit which has been given to the D.G.P. of the State and copy of which has been sent to various authorities including the S.P. and the Investigating Officer of the case and short counter affidavit filed by the victim/ prosecutrix, it would emerge that in the Qubulnama as well as in the affidavit the prosecutrix had denied all the allegations of sexual assault, earlier levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. as well as in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In the Qubulnama as well as in her short counter affidavit filed before this Court, it has been specifically stated that she had given the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. under the pressure of her husband and his family members. The veracity of the Qubulnama or affidavit, which has been filed by the prosecutrix, may be assessed by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and if any suitable action be warranted, the same may also be taken having regard to the fact that the prosecutrix had herself admitted to have given a wrong and false information to the police. However, as of now the prosecutrix appears to be making contradictory statements at different occasions, which in the opinion of this Court is sufficient enough to protect the liberty of the applicant till

¶20

submission of Police Report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C.

¶21

Thus, for the reasons given herein-before, the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Palvinder Singh is finally disposed of in terms that till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in the event of arrest of the applicant- Palvinder Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime number, by the Investigating Officer/ Arresting officer/ S.H.O. concerned, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Investigating Officer/ Arresting officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer/investigating officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶23

(ii) 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;

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Palvinder Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palvinder Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gajraj Kunwar Jain Vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad

Surendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sewa Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sushil Kumar Sanwal vs State of U.P and Another