Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024ABAIL/7981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble AHC granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a rape case pending the submission of the police report, based on the nature of the accusation involving a long-standing consensual relationship and the applicant's matrimonial status at the time. Bail granted on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:132282

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7981 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Jamal,Shabeh Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Copy of the statement of the victim recorded before the Magistrate, produced by learned AGA, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 453 of 2024, under section 376 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was in consensual relationship with the opposite party no.2/victim for more than three years. When the victim entered into relationship with the applicant, she was a married lady. She was not in a position to marry the applicant. It is next contended that 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. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

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

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of the police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact, that when the victim entered into relationship with the applicant, she was a

¶12

married lady, the fact that 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., without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant Sunil Kumar be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., 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:

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

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.

¶20

The anticipatory stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.8.2024/Lbm/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vindhyachal Singh vs State of Up

Arun Yadav Alias Arun Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangal Parmar vs State of U.P.

Sandeep and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Polan Singh @ Kavita Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Anand Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Another