Allowed

Abhay @ Abhay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2024ABAIL/12077/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that anticipatory bail is granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the applicant accused of rape and criminal conspiracy, considering the long consensual relationship between parties negates the rape charge without merit discussion. Bail granted subject to personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties; applicant must cooperate with investigation and not leave country.

Abhay @ Abhay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197981

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12077 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Abhay @ Abhay Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Sri P.C. Srivastava and Sri Aryan Srivastava, Advocates have filed their vakalatnama on behalf of applicant and Sri Kamendra Singh, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The same are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, counsel for the applicant, counsel for the opposite party no. 2/ informant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 1050 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Sadar, District- Deoria.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for more than six years. The consensual sexual relationship which if continued between the parties for several years 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. No offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2793 of 2024 decided on 20.11.2024. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is still pending. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have 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 counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, and, in particular, the fact that the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for a considerable period of time. The said relationship could not be said to have continued under the

¶12

misconception of fact under Section 90 I.P.C. and could not be said to be 'rape' under Section 375 I.P.C., without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant Abhay @ Abhay Pratap Singh , 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court.

¶19

(vi) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

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

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.12.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhay @ Abhay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay @ Abhay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Similar cases

Rajendra vs State of Up and Another

Sachin Alias Sachin Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deshraj vs State of U.P.

Indra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Harsh vs State of U.P. and Another

Devanand Alias Deva vs State of U.P. and Another