Allowed

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024ABAIL/10163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to an accused alleging false implication in sexual offences. The court noted the victim was an adult and the relationship appeared consensual, finding custody unnecessary for the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail enlarged on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions of attendance, not influencing witnesses, and absence from India without permission

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172491

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10163 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant-victim. The same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the informant-victim as well as Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 313 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Kubersthan, District Kushinagar.

¶9

4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the head master of Prathmik Vidyalaya Khairtiya Seorahi, District Kushinagar and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is aged 29 years. Further, the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for several years. The consensual sexual relationship which if continued between the parties for quite a long time could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact' under Section 90 I.P.C. and could not be said to be 'rape' under Section 375 I.P.C. The applicant never made any promise to marry the victim. During the pendency of investigation, the applicant was granted protection by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3809 of 2024 (Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). The applicant had co-operated with the investigation, the investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail till the end of trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact, that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is aged 29 years, the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for several years, the consensual sexual relationship which if continued between the parties for quite a long time could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact' under Section 90 I.P.C. and could not be said to be 'rape' under Section 375 I.P.C., charge-sheet has been submitted, no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant Kanhaiya Lal involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶14

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶15

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶17

The application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Lbm/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Kishan Pal Singh vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Tyagi vs State of U.P.

Uzaif Ahmed vs State of U.P.

Bharat Lal vs State of U.P. and Another

Naimuddin vs State of Up and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another