Allowed

Shahrukh Sharif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024/3070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal appeal against a bail rejection order under the SC/ST Act arising from an FIR regarding rape and cheating. The High Court, noting the appellant's lack of criminal history and applying precedents on false marriage promises, allowed the appeal and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.09.2024 set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Shahrukh Sharif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73623

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3070 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shahrukh Sharif Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Kumar,Ajay Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Veer Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ajay Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶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 02.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 1588 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 398 of 2024, under Sections - 376, 504, 506, 417 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶9

While pressing the present appeal, it is stated that a perusal of the story of the prosecution would indicate that the respondent no. 2 established physical relations with the applicant on her own volition and it is a case of consent not of rape.

¶10

In continuation, it is stated that if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value which is to the effect that on the false pretext of marriage, the appellant established physical relations with the respondent no. 2 in that event 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;

¶11

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 .

¶12

It is also stated that as per FIR the physical relation was established first time on 31.10.2022 and thereafter, on several occasions the applicant established physical relation with victim and it is so then in that eventuality the statement of the victim that she came to know only on 19.05.2024 regarding the religion of the appellant would be completely false.

¶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

Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ajay Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellant.

¶17

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and and Shri Ajay Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well as all the relevant

¶18

documents placed on record.

¶19

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties., 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 19.07.2024 and has no criminal history as also the submissions regarding physical relations as also the 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.

¶20

Order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 1588 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 398 of 2024, under Sections - 376, 504, 506, 417 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad, is hereby set aside.

¶21

Let appellant- Shahrukh Sharif 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 :-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶33

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

Shahrukh Sharif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh Sharif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Manjesh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav @ Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suneel Yadav @ Suneel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Udayraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Udayraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko