Dismissed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024ABAIL/6409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant, charged with offences including IPC 420, 376, and 506, sought enlargement on bail. The court rejected the application deeming it inappropriate due to allegations of fraudulent intent, contrary statements on matrimonial sites, and physical relations against will.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; applicant directed to apply for regular bail.

Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114259

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6409 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Jaiswal,Mohit Singh,Rahila Sikandar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the state.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicantRaghuveer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 338 of 2024, under Sections 420, 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

In brief, the allegations in the F.I.R. are that the informant/victim was a divorced lady. She came into contact with the applicant through a matrimonial site known as Jeevansathi.com. At the said site, the applicant had claimed that his wife had died. In the telephonic conversation with the informant, the applicant had also claimed that his wife is no more and he has no children. On the pretext of marriage, the applicant indulged in sexual relations with the informant since 07.11.2023. The informant further alleged that the applicant had taken her and her son to an accommodation where the parents of the applicant also resided. The applicant had also assaulted the informant. The said information was given to the police by dialing Police Helpline No. '112'. On 31.03.2024, the informant and her son was ousted by the applicant from his house. The informant reiterated that the applicant had physical relation against her will on the pretext of marriage.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The first information report has been lodged to extract money from the applicant. The relationship between the applicant and the victim were consensual in nature.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the applicant was a married person. At the matrimonial site, the applicant had shown his marital status as "Divorced, Widowed and

¶11

Annulled". The WhatsApp messages between the applicant and the victim showed that the applicant on the pretext of marriage had developed physical relation with the informant. He further submits that the applicant being a married man was never in a position to marry the informant/victim. This shows that the applicant had fraudulent intent from the very inception. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 509: (AIR 2019 SC 1857).

¶12

I have considered the submissions of both the sides in light of the material produced including the profile status of the applicant at the matrimonial site (Jeevansathi.com), WhatsApp messages between the applicant and the informant (collectively annexed as Annexure 3 to the affidavit), statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the contents of the F.I.R. In my opinion, this is not an appropriate case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the instant application is rejected, leaving it open to the applicant to apply for regular bail before the court concerned, which application on being filed may be considered on its own merits, without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶14

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

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alka Gupta vs State of U.P. 3 Others

Satish Chandra vs State of Up Others

Ratan Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharif vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shalini Upadhyay vs State of Up and Another