Allowed

Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 May 2024ABAIL/1048/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., permitting the applicant to remain at large pending investigation in a rape case due to inconsistencies in victim statements and refusal of medical examination.

What did the court decide?

FIR applicant Hari Shanker not to be arrested under the case pending further orders, subject to standard conditions of bail.

Hari Shanker vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50470

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1048 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hari Shanker Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Salman,Ana Fatma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. The applicant has have moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0087 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504 IPC, Police Station Fatehpur - 84, District Unnao.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State who has opposed the bail.

¶8

3. Gist of the issue involved in the present anticipatory bail application is given in order dated 17.5.2024 which is extracted below :

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶10

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.0087 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504 IPC, Police Station Fatehpur - 84, District Unnao.

¶11

In terms of the FIR initially registered as an offence under Section 354, 352, 504 IPC, it was alleged that on the date of the incident, the applicant had misbehaved and had caught hold of the informant's hand; somehow she could escape. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., once again the FIR version was reiterated and it was also stated that her mouth was pressed by hands. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim took a somersault and stated that a rape was committed on her. The victim has refused to undergo medical examination as is evident from Annexure - 4.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the fact that the version was changed in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the allegations cannot be verified in view of the refusal of the victim to undergo the medical examination, it is a fit case to grant interim protection in favour of the applicant. Thus, it is directed that in pursuance of the FIR in question, the applicant Hari Shanker shall not be arrested till the next date of listing subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶15

(ii) That the accused-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 or to any police officer; and

¶16

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶17

Liston 08.07.2024.

¶18

Meanwhile, State shall file its objection.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim has made improvement while giving statement under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, she has refused to undergo medical examination, the applicant has no criminal history and charge sheet has been filed.

¶20

5.Considering the interim protection granted by this court vide order extracted above which has not been misused by the applicant. He further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, the applicant has no criminal history, statements under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial.

¶21

6. In view of the above. the order above extracted is made absolute. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 kkb/

¶23

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

Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

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

Smt. Pushpa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

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

Vipin Kumar (Vipin Kumar Alias V.P Impugned Chargesheet) Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shivansh Srivastava and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Brijesh Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another