Allowed

Rakesh Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024ABAIL/3360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court considered allegations of rape against the applicant, who contested charges based on a long-standing consensual relationship. Finding no need for custodial interrogation and noting cooperation, the court granted anticipatory bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Rakesh Ram vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:156190

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3360 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rakesh Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Bhushan Dhar Dubey,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by counsel for the informant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, Sri Vimlendru Tripathi and Sri Chandra Bhushan Dhar Dubey, counsels for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶8

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.04.2024 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below;-

¶9

"1. List revised.

¶10

2. Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Bhushan Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State are present.

¶11

3. On 19.04.2024 an objection was raised by learned counsel for the State regarding difference in the recital in the name of the applicant and the deponent.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the supplementary affidavit-II dated 21.04.2024 to clarify the same.

¶13

5. Perused the same. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that during investigation the applicant and other co-accused challenged the first information report before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10198 of 2023 (Shailendra Singh Chauhan @ Samrat Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) in which vide order dated 17.07.2023 the arrest of the petitioners therein was stayed till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on which the trial court has taken cognizance vide order dated 29.08.2023. It is further submitted that the applicant and co-accused challenged the said charge-sheet dated 04.08.2023 before this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 42087 of 2023 (Shailendra Singh Chauhan Alias Samrat Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and another) which was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2023. It is submitted that the applicant cooperated during investigation. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant did not cooperate in the investigation. It is further argued that the relationship between the co-accused and the first informant was a consensual relationship on a promise to marry which could not materialize. It is argued that co-accused Shailendra Singh Chauhan Alias Samrat Singh has been

¶15

granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2109 of 2024 (Shailendra Singh Chauhan Alias Samrat Singh vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-19 to the affidavit. The applicant is not a previous convict as stated in para 51 of the affidavit.

¶16

7. Learned counsel for the first informant prays for and is granted a week's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

¶17

8. Connect with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2109 of 2024 (Shailendra Singh Chauhan Alias Samrat Singh vs. State of U.P.) and list on the date fixed in the connected matter.

¶18

9. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Rakesh Ram, in Criminal Case No. 10364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 328 of 2023, under Sections 376, 377, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

10. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶23

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

¶24

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship since 2018. The first information report was lodged on 20.06.2023. 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. During the course of investigation, the applicant was granted protection by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12625 of 2023 (Shailendra Singh Chauhan @ Samrat vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). Investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the trial court. The applicant is appearing before the concerned court on the dates fixed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶25

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

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship since 2018. 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 filed. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required. Further, no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of bail has been pointed out by the counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A.without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶27

In the event of arrest, the applicant Rakesh Ram , 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:-

¶28

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

¶29

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

The application stands disposed of.

¶33

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶34

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

Rakesh Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Ram v. State of U.P.

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

Raman Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Irshad @ Irshad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Haseena vs State of U.P.

Kiran Gautam and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Naimuddin vs State of Up and Another

Khemchand and Another vs State of U.P.