Siddharth Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23740

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 586 of 2024

Applicant :- Siddharth Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the investigation of the case is still pending.

¶7

Heard Shri Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Siddharth Pandey , in Case Crime No. 16 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Gangaghat, District Unnao, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the prosecutrix/victim herself alleging therein that on the pretext of extending false promise of marriage sexual relations were established by the applicant and when she insisted to solemnize marriage, he refused and thereafter a compromise had taken place between them and even after the compromise the applicant continuously established sexual relations with her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the copy of a written compromise placed as Annexure No.2 to the anticipatory bail application, which has also been acknowledged by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is vehemently submitted that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant of time as per her educational credentials was 19 years. She was major and even if there was any sexual relations established with her, the same

¶11

was with free wish, will and consent of the prosecutrix and the same may never be given the colour of sexual assault.

¶12

It is further submitted that in the written compromise, which has been acknowledged by the prosecutrix of date 06.11.2023, it was categorically settled that the parties will not establish any relationship thereafter and in the background of the written compromise all allegations which have been levelled by the prosecutrix are false, concocted and could not be believed.

¶13

It is next submitted that applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required. He is also not having any criminal history.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that the factum of establishing sexual relations on the pretext of extending false promise of marriage has been corroborated by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Perusal of the record would reveal that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant point of time was 19 years. The period within which the sexual relations were frequently established between the applicant and prosecutrix is shown to be of four years. A written compromise has also taken place between the parties on 06.11.2023, wherein a conscious decision appears to have been taken by the parties not to solemnize marriage and it is vehemently submitted that in the background of this written compromise, which has been acknowledged by the prosecutrix, all allegations levelled against the applicant could not be believed. Applicant is not having any criminal history and it is undertaken that he will cooperate in the investigation.

¶16

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicant.

¶17

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Siddharth Pandey is finally disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of the applicant in the above-mentioned case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶18

satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶20

(2) 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;

¶21

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.

¶22

In case of default of any condition the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this order.

¶23

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶24

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Praveen

¶25

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

Siddharth Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. 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

Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

Paramjeet Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar Singh Sisodiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Rafiq @ Java Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

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