Allowed

Sachin @ Sachin Valmiki v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024ABAIL/1566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge analyzed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering earlier interim protection, absence of specific serious allegations, and co-accused bail, the court made interim order absolute by allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Appeal for anticipatory bail made absolute on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with conditions.

Sachin @ Sachin Valmiki vs State of U.P Thru. Addil… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66571

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1566 of 2024 Applicant :- Sachin @ Sachin Valmiki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in case crime/ FIR No.146 of 2024 under sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Rahul Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Raghvendra Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has prayed some time to file counter affidavit.

¶8

Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 06.08.2024, time was granted to the counsel for respondent no. 2 to file counter affidavit, however, no counter affidavit has been filed. Counter filed by the State is on record.

¶9

In view of the above, the request of learned counsel for the complainant is refused.

¶10

The coordinate Bench of this Court while giving interim protection has passed the following order on 15.07.2024:-

¶11

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Raghvendra Pandey who appears for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶12

2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.146 of 2024 under sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

¶13

3. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that in terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that the main accused Vikas Valmiki formed physical relations with the daughter of informant on the false pretext of marriage. As against the applicant who is the brother of the main accused, had hurled abuses and also threatened for dire consequences.

¶14

4. Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the informant oppose the application and also seek time to file the reply.

¶15

5. Considering the fact that there being no allegation against the applicant for commission of offence under section 376 IPC, prima-facie a case for interim bail is made out.

¶16

6. Thus, it is directed that the applicant Sachin @ Sachin Valmiki shall not be arrested till the next date of listing in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR in question, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- to the satisfaction of Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

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

¶18

(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

¶19

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

¶20

7. The counsel for the informant is directed to file the reply within three weeks.

¶21

8. List on 06.08.2024."

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Arjun has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1591 of 2024. He claims parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application submitting that investigation in the matter is pending.

¶24

Considering the interim protection granted by this court vide order extracted above, so also considering the fact that there is no allegation against this applicant for committing offence under Section 376/313 IPC; co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail, so also the undertaking given by the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the interim protection granted earlier is liable to be and is hereby made absolute.

¶25

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.9.2024/R.C.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin @ Sachin Valmiki v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Sachin Valmiki v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Bhannu @ Amarjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Chandra Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Farooq @ Sharukh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Km. Arti Saroj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others