Disposed

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2024NABAIL/146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Lucknow addressed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving alleged sexual offence (376 IPC). The court declined to grant anticipatory bail but granted liberty to move for bail before the trial court within two weeks, citing a pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; liberty granted to seek bail before trial court within two weeks based on Aman Preet Singh principles.

Praveen Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75946

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 146 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Prabhu Sharan, Advocate who has filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of opposite party no. 2 / complainant.

¶7

By means of this anticipatory bail application the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 0742 of 2024 u/s 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Unnao, District Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶9

Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant is serving on the post of 'Sub-Inspector' and he is cooperating in the investigation, therefore, his arrest is not warranted in view of the trite law. Learned counsel has referred the dictum of Apex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, 2021 SCC Online SC 941 referring para 11 thereof which reads as under :

¶10

"11.... Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a nonbailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶11

Attention has been drawn towards the whats-app chat of the prosecutrix with her friend wherein she has admitted that no physical relation of the prosecutrix has been established with the applicant.

¶12

Though the learned AGA has shown the part of case diary wherein such whats-app chat is not the part of the case diary but the whats-app chat between the applicant and prosecutrix has been made part of the case diary which indicates that the applicant was in relation with the prosecutrix. Learned counsel has stated that there is inordinate delay of five months in lodging F.I.R., on that learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the prosecutrix have stated that since the applicant had assured the prosecutrix for marriage, therefore, she did not lodge F.I.R. against him when the physical relation was established but when the applicant denied for the marriage the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged. For the aforesaid delay she could not get herself medically examined as there was no purpose to get her medically examined after substantial delay.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record though the law is very much clear in re: Aman Preet Singh (supra) to the effect that the arrest of a person is not warranted in each and every circumstance if he is not avoiding the process of law during investigation, he may not be taken into custody but at the same time law is trite on the point that while considering the request of anticipatory bail the Court will have to see as to whether the case in hand is a case of false implication or not.

¶14

In the present case, since the investigation is pending, therefore, nothing can be observed at this stage, looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶15

Therefore, for the aforesaid reason I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant but the liberty is given to the applicant to appear before the learned court concerned by filing his application for bail etc. seeking benefit of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh (supra) and if the learned trial court finds that the present applicant is entitled for the benefit of the dictum of the Apex Court the same may be done but strictly in accordance with law. For that liberty is given to the present applicant to appear before the learned trial court and move such application within a period of two weeks and if such application is filed, the same may be disposed of with expedition without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶16

In view of above the applicant is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 19.11.2024/Om

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶19

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jay Shankar @ Mangal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Abhinav Omar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vasishtha Chandra Yadav and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 4 Others