Disposed

Aryan Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024CRLA/2008/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) S.C./S.T. Act seeking bail in a case involving allegations of sexual relations on pretext of marriage. Both parties being majors and willing to marry, the court granted three months' interim bail with conditions, without entering merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2008 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Aryan Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kishan Sharma,Vineet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Chaurasia

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

'Vakalatnama' on behalf of the victim, who as of now is major, has been filed by Shri Pradeep Chaurasiya, who is also representing the opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Pradeep Chaurasiya, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 and victim as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellant/ Aryan Gupta for grant of bail and to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Incharge Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur, in Bail Application No. 509 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)va of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sitapur, during trial.

¶8

Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra as well as Shri Pradeep Chaurasiya, learned counsels appearing for the parties jointly submits that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the informant/victim alleging therein that the appellant and the victim were in a relationship from before two years of lodging of the F.I.R. and it was also alleged that sexual relations were established between them on the pretext that court-marriage would be performed by the appellant with victim and thereafter the victim became pregnant, however, the appellant did not solemnize marriage with her.

¶9

It is further submitted that now the parties are ready to solemnize marriage and for this purpose they will move an application before the appropriate authority to get their marriage registered under Special Marriage Act and, thus, the appellant be released on interim bail.

¶10

Shri Pradeep Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the informant as well as for the victim, submits that he under instruction his making a statement that victim, who as of now is major, is having no objection if the facility of interim bail is extended in favour of the appellant, as the parties at the relevant point of time when the offence is shown to have been committed, had also attained majority. In this regard, the attention of this Court has drawn towards an affidavit filed by the victim of date 05.09.2024, wherein in para no.5, it is stated that if the appellant wants to marry with the victim then the victim is also willing to marry him.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the offence could only be compounded in view of the provisions contained under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and not otherwise.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the parties were major at the date and time of the alleged incident. The allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. that the appellant and victim were in a relationship, however, it is alleged that sexual relations were established on the pretext of marrying and thereafter the marriage was not performed. Now it is shown before this Court by learned counsel for the parties that parties, who are major, are willing to solemnize marriage and for this purpose, grant of interim bail has been requested.

¶13

This Court, having considered all aspects of the matter, is of the view that since parties are major, they may be permitted to solemnize marriage if they are intending so. Thus, without entering into the merits and demerits of the case, as the same would be considered at an appropriate stage, a case of interim bail is emerging in favour of the appellant.

¶14

Thus, the appellant- Aryan Gupta is released on interim bail for three months from today, so that, as canvassed before this Court, the parties may move appropriate authority for registration of their marriage under Special Marriage Act, if they wish so, on the following conditions;

¶15

(i) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required before it and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on interim bail.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

List this appeal on 6th January, 2025, on which date the appellant shall remain present before this Court personally.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Praveen

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aryan Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aryan Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Anand Kumar Porswani Vs Rent Authority/Addl. District Magistrate(East), Lko. and Another

M/S Isherdas Sahni and Bros., New Delhi Thru. Partner Mr. Mohit Sahni and Another Vs Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian Father Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Master Shivansh Mishra, Thru. His Father Vishnu Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Tafsheer Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others