Allowed

Arvind Kumar v. State of Up Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024ABAIL/715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant who was falsely implicated in a criminal case involving sexual molestation and cheating. The court noted the victim was married and the relationship was complex, finding no warrant to modify earlier interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Relief to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail pending trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance, inducement, and travel.

Arvind Kumar vs State of Up Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139037

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 715 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mamta Singh,Pankaj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and Sri Noor Muhammad, counsel for the opposite party no.3. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.1003 of 2023, under sections 376, 384, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria.

¶8

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 31.1.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:

¶9

"1. List revised.

¶10

2. Sri Noor Mohammad, Advocate states that he has filed his vakalatnama in the office on behalf of the first informant yesterday i.e. 30.1.2024 but the same is not on record.

¶11

3. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.

¶12

4. Heard Sri Amit Rana holding brief of Ms. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶13

5. The FIR was lodged by the victim herself against the applicant alleging therein that she is a married woman and a divorce petition with mutual consent has been filed before the court concerned by her and her husband which is pending disposal. She met the applicant on social website for marriage after which there was discussion between them for marriage. The applicant visited her house and gave her some intoxicating substance and established physical relationship with her. He stated that he has captured her nude photographs. The allegation is that the applicant has been blackmailing her and has been establishing forceful physical relationship and even exploiting her financially.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is a married woman. While placing para 14 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application, it is argued that the applicant got married in June, 2023. The implication of the applicant in the present case is false and with malafide intention. While placing para 5 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application, it is argued that the investigation in the matter is pending. The applicant has no criminal history, para 24 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application has been placed before the Court.

¶15

7. Learned counsel for the first informant prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶16

8. List this case on 14.03.2024.

¶17

9. Till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court which ever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant-Arvind Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.1003 of 2023, under Sections 376, 384 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(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 S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

10. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

11. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. "

¶23

On 14.3.2024, the court passed the following order:

¶24

"1. List revised.

¶25

2. Heard Ms. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no. 3, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the State has served a copy of counter affidavit today in Court to learned counsel for the applicant.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the first informant prays for three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Prayer is allowed.

¶28

5. The applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavits, if any.

¶29

7. Let the matter be listed on 27.4.2024.

¶30

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.1.2024.

¶31

9. In view of the same, till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court which ever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Arvind Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.1003 of 2023, under Sections 376, 384 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶33

¶34

(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 S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶35

10. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶36

11. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶37

12. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order."

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant on 8.2.2024. The applicant has been summoned by the court concerned to face trial. The applicant and the victim were in relationship for almost two years. It is

¶39

contended that the victim herself was a married woman. The victim was never in a position to marry the applicant. She could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the applicant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the applicant. No offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. The applicant is appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶40

Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order dated 31.1.2024, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and in particular the fact that the applicant and the victim were in relationship for almost two years and the victim herself was a married woman, she was never in a position to marry the applicant, the fact that the applicant is appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed, the fact that no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of bail has been pointed out by the learned AGA and no adverse material has been produced by the counsel for the opposite party no.3, which may warrant any modification in the earlier orders dated 31.1.2024 and 14.3.2024, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶42

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Arvind Kumar , 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:-

¶43

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

¶44

(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;

¶45

(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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

The application stands disposed of.

¶49

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 S.S.

¶50

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar v. State of Up Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of Up Others

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

Dr. Utkarsh Singh vs State of Up and Another

Sambhav Shukla vs State of Up and 3 Others

Haridarshan @ Darshan Singh vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary and Another

Ishteyaq Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Anoop vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Meena Devi Alias Meenu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another