Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52091

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 31 of 2024 Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Vijay Kumar Asthana

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in FIR/Case Crime No.095 of 2023, under Sections 323, 328, 506, 376, 504, 386, 342, 314 and 379 IPC read with Section 67 of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kheri.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

The coordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 09.01.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶9

"1. Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and investigation of the case is still pending.

¶10

2. Mr. R.H. Ansari and Mr. Vijay Kumar Asthana, Advocates have put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2/complainant. The Power/Vakalatnama filed by them is taken on record. They submit that sometime be granted to them for the purpose of filing counter affidavit/objection.

¶11

3. This application has been moved by the applicant- Ranjeet Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.095 of 2023, under Sections 323, 328, 506, 376, 504, 386, 342, 314 and 379 IPC read with Section 67 of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kheri.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Even if the allegations, as levelled in the FIR and emerging in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC,

¶13

are believed as it is, it will emerge that the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with the applicant and thereafter a suit under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by the applicant in Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, which had ended into a compromise entered into between the parties and thereafter a dispute has arisen between the victim and the applicant. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that the informant/victim has still not been divorced by her earlier husband and a petition for divorce is still pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as statements of the prosecutrix could not be believed and, if believed, the same would not attract any offence against the applicant since, as per informant/victim herself, she is legally wedded wife of the applicant and, therefore, there is no question of attracting Section 376 IPC even if the marriage, as claimed by the victim, is void, void ab initio or voidable.

¶14

5. On the other hand learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant/victim submits that the consent of the victim was taken by placing wrong facts and, even after solemnizing marriage, the applicant is not ready to keep the informant/victim as his wife.

¶15

6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is serving as Sepoy in the Indian Army and, in case of his arrest, without there being any sufficient evidence/material, his whole career may be ruined. In this regard, a copy of communication sent by the investigating officer to the Commandant, 68, Engineer Regiment, Solmara, Tezpur, Assam along with non-bailable warrant has been placed for perusal of this Court, which is taken on record.

¶16

7. Thus, there appears to be sufficient apprehension so far as the applicant is concerned of his arrest in the instant case. Since learned counsel for the informant/complainant has submitted that he would like to file counter affidavit/objection and 7 days' time has been sought for this purpose, in the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, while granting a week's time to the informant/complainant for the purpose of filing objection/counter affidavit, personal liberty of the applicant may be protected.

¶17

8. Let this matter be, accordingly, listed on 18.01.2024 within top ten cases of the cause-list, reflecting names of Mr. R.H. Ansari and Mr. Vijay Kumar Asthana, as counsels for opposite party no. 2/complainant.

¶18

9. By the said date, the complainant/informant may file counter affidavit/objection.

¶19

10. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Ranjeet Kumar, involved in the above-mentioned crime, by SHO of the concerned police station, investigating officer or under any process of the Court concerned, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/investigating officer/trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i). The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and will remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶22

(iii). In case of filing of charge-sheet against the applicant, he shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶23

(iv). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶24

11. It shall be kept in mind by the investigating officer while summoning the applicant for cooperation in the investigation that he is serving in the Army and for that purpose permission would have to be taken by him from his superior(s). "

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in the matter has been filed. He has challenged charge sheet before this Court by filing a petition U/S 482 No. 6575/2024 which is engaging attention of the Court. He has cooperated in the investigation and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶27

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the applicant is not cooperating in the trial.

¶28

On due consideration to the fact charge sheet in the matter has been filed; he is serving Sepoy in the Indian Army and posted in Assam; he has cooperated in the investigation and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶29

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶31

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶33

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶34

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted;

¶35

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶36

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶37

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶39

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 R.C.

¶40

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Sartaj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shashi Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

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

Hanuman Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another