Allowed

Anand Kumar Singh @ Arman Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC13 May 2024/333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant sought release from custody citing inordinate delay in the FIR, lack of prior criminal history, and a consensual relationship with the prosecutrix. The court observed the unexplained delay and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court attendance and travel restrictions.

Anand Kumar Singh @ Arman Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36704

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 333 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh @ Arman Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Veer Bahadur Yadav,Ashwini Kumar Singh,Babban Prasad Shukla,Vandana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vishwanath Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 08.10.2023 in Case Crime No.465 of 2023, under Sections 376, 384, 506, 427 & 323 IPC and Section 3/5 (1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Mill Area, District- Raebareli.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards impugned FIR, wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 17.02.2022 but the FIR has been lodged on 04.10.2023 i.e. after about one year and eight months and the explanation of the aforesaid inordinate delay has nowhere been given in the FIR. Even if, the version of FIR is taken on its face value, it is clear that the prosecutrix was happily roaming around with the applicant from one place to another place, even from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand. Further attention has been

¶10

drawn towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that the present applicant has established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage, concealing the actual identity inasmuch as he was Muslim by religion but has intimated his name as Anand Kumar Singh.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that no such evidence or material has been collected during the investigation to demonstrate that the present applicant had concealed his identity. She has submitted that this is a case of love and affair, where the applicant and the prosecutrix were willing to marry each other but on account of the religious hurdle such marriage could not be taken place, then the prosecutrix lodged a false and misconceived FIR against the present applicant after about one year and eight months. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the present applicant concealing his identity, trapped the prosecutrix in his affairs and compelled him to convert her religion to marry with him.

¶13

On being asked from learned A.G.A. as to whether any material or evidence has been collected during the investigation to that effect, if so, as to whether any material has been enclosed with the counter affidavit, except the statement of the prosecutrix, no other material has been enclosed with the counter affidavit.

¶14

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that there is inordinate delay of about one year and eight months in lodging the FIR and the delay has not been explained; the applicant established physical relations with the prosecutrix with her own consent allegedly on the false promise of marriage; both the applicant and the prosecutrix are major; the applicant is in jail for more than seven months; there is no prior criminal history of the present applicant and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant- Anand Kumar Singh @ Arman Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anand Kumar Singh @ Arman Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Singh @ Arman Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sabir Alias Akram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Jameel Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko.

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

Parvati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Raju Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Puneet Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. Rural Engineering Services Lko. and 3 Others