Allowed

Vindhyachal Singh v. State of Up

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024ABAIL/992/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, holding that the prosecution failed to show why custodial interrogation was necessary. The applicant, a government servant with no criminal record, had cooperated in the investigation. The charges were based on a consensual relationship where both parties were married.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to remain present in court, not to influence witnesses, and to deposit passport.

Vindhyachal Singh vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131335

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 992 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vindhyachal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State and Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the informant. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

The application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0133 of 2023, under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria.

¶8

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.2.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:

¶9

"1. List revised.

¶10

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the present case is a case of false promise to marry on which the applicant is stated to have sexually exploited the first informant/victim. It is argued that the victim is a major woman aged about 45 years who has left her husband around 16-18 years ago. It is argued that the investigation in the matter has concluded after which charge sheet has been filed on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant and coaccused persons vide order dated 6.6.2023. It is argued that after lodging of the FIR the applicant and two co-accused had filed a writ petition for quashing of the said FIR before this Court in which a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.4.2023 had stayed arrest of the petitioners therein till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5641 of 2023 (Vindhyachal Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), copy of the said order has been placed before the Court as annexure no.1 to the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application. It is argued that there is no report whatsoever that the applicant did not cooperate in the investigation. While placing para no.43 of the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application, it is argued that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

4. Matter requires consideration.

¶13

5. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of State of U.P./opposite party no.1.

¶14

6. Issue notice to the first informant in accordance with law returnable within four weeks.

¶15

7. Steps be taken within a week.

¶16

8. Counter affidavit be filed by learned A.G.A as well as the first informant within the said period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by the applicant within three weeks thereafter.

¶17

9. List this case on 16.04.2024.

¶18

10. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant-Vindhyachal Singh, involved in Case Crime No.0133 of 2023, under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, he 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 a passport, the same shall be deposited before the concerned court.

¶22

11. 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

12. 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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a government servant and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship since more than ten years. The applicant as well as the victim both were married. Both the parties were not in a position to marry each other. The consensual sexual relationship that 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. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 16.5.2023. The applicant has been summoned to face trial on 6.6.2023. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶25

Learned Brief Holder for the State and learned counsel for the informant 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 and antecedents of the applicant and in particular the fact that the applicant as well as the victim both were married. Both

¶27

the parties were not in a position to marry each other, the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, the fact that no adverse material has been produced by the learned AGA, which may warrant any modification in the earlier order dated 21.2.2024, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶28

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Vindhyachal Singh , 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:-

¶29

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

¶30

(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;

¶31

(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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

The application stands disposed of.

¶35

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 S.S.

¶36

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

Vindhyachal Singh v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindhyachal Singh v. State of Up

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

Shyam Murari Maurya and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Prempal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Sonvir Singh vs State of U.P.

Naresh Pal Gupta vs State of Up and Another

Mainu Alias Mainuddin Alias Basid Ali vs State of U.P.

Guljar Ali vs State of U.P.