Allowed

Mustkim v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2024ABAIL/303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Mustkim. The court noted a prior FIR of rape against his son which resulted in marriage and a closure report, with evidence of marital strife and the complainant leaving the applicant's home. No arrest was made during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties if arrested or surrendered within 20 days.

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

¶1

exNeutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14365

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 303 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mustkim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Mustkim, in Case Crime No. 546 of 2023, under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, DistrictBahraich, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and the allegations, which have been levelled in the first information report as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., are patently false, concocted and could not be believed.

¶10

It is further submitted that earlier a false case under Section 376 I.P.C. was lodged by the prosecutrix against the son of the applicant, namely, Parvej bearing Case Crime No.728 of 2022 at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, Bahraich, wherein allegation has been levelled that sexual relations have been made by the son of the applicant with the informant/ prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage. However, thereafter a compromise had taken place between the son of the applicant and the prosecutrix and they solemnized marriage. In this regard, the F.I.R. earlier filed by the prosecutrix against the son of the applicant, a copy of marriage certificate as well as a copy of Niqahnama and affidavit given by the prosecutrix to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich with regard to not taking any action on her F.I.R. and Final Report/ Closure Report

¶11

submitted therein have been highlighted, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure Nos. 6 to 10 (Page No. 29 to 54) of the paper book.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the prosecutrix remained with the son of the applicant for about six months and thereafter disappeared and in this regard, the applicant had given an information in the concerned police station i.e. Kotwali Dehat, Bahraich on 19.06.2023, which has been recorded in G.D. No.34 of the same date, a copy of that information has been placed at Page No.56 and 57 of the paper book.

¶13

It is also submitted that it is only on account of the strained relations developed between the prosecutrix and the son of the applicant (husband of the prosecutrix) and for placing undue pressure on the applicant, this false case has been cooked. The applicant is the father-in-law of the victim and there is no medical report in support of the allegations. The applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation as he has cooperated through out and the charge sheet has been submitted without making his arrest and he undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial also.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, as it is reflected that the prosecutrix has earlier lodged a case of rape against the son of the applicant and thereafter, a compromise appears to have taken place between them and they have solemnized marriage. In the said case of rape, on the basis of an affidavit filed by the prosecutrix requesting not taking any action on the F.I.R. lodged by her, a Closure Report/ Final Report appears to have been filed/ submitted by the Investigating Officer. The instant applicant admittedly is the father-in-law of the informant. A copy of G.D. entry and an information given by the applicant has also been highlighted, a copy of which has been placed at Page No.56 and 57 of the paper book, in order to show that the prosecutrix had left the house of the son of the applicant on 19.06.2023. Admittedly, the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, a case of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

¶16

In result, the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Mustkim is, hereby allowed and it is provided

¶17

that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Mustkim, in the above-mentioned case under any process of the trial court or on his appearance/surrender before the trial court within 20 days, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required, in case further investigation is directed;

¶19

(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;

¶20

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

¶21

Applicant shall remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and he would not take adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶22

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶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 :- 19.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mustkim v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustkim v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Abhishek Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.