Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024NABAIL/167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant facing allegations of rape and harassment. The court relied on the delayed FIR and pendency of a Section 125 petition to protect the applicant's liberty under a leading Supreme Court decision, subject to standard bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Liberty protected; interim anticipatory bail granted upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties and abiding by specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 167 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0237/2024, under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C. (Now under Section 64 & 352 of B.N.S., 2023), at Police Station - Makhi, District - Unnao.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R., wherein the date of the incident has been indicated as 30.07.2021 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.07.2024, after three years of the incident, without explaining the proper reasons of the delay. In the F.I.R., the allegation has been leveled that on the pretext of false promise of marriage, the applicant has established physical relation with the prosecutrix but now he is denying for marriage.

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.3, which is a marriage agreement between the applicant and the prosecutrix dated 23.02.2023. Further, attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.4 dated 12.03.2024 which a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by the prosecutrix before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao wherein in paragraph 1, she has indicated that she is a legally wedded wife of the applicant and now the present applicant is demanding dowry, etc. and on account of non fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, he is harassing and torturing her. After more than 04 months from the aforesaid complaint dated 12.03.2024, the prosecutrix has lodged the impugned F.I.R. on 30.07.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the allegations of the F.I.R. are such where the fact of false implication is apparent,

¶9

applicant is cooperating in the investigation and he undertakes that if granted, shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. Therefore, liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98 .

¶10

5. Matter requires consideration.

¶11

Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶12

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. One week time thereafter is granted to the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶13

List this case in the week commencing 13th January, 2025.

¶14

Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the delay in lodging of the F.I.R., the fact that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the informant/opposite party No. 2 against the applicant and that the applicant has given an undertaking that he shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98 .

¶15

Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i). the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required;

¶17

(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 or tamper with the evidence; and

¶18

(iii). the applicant shall not leave India without the previous

¶19

permission of the court.

¶20

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 ML/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gokul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Moolchand Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Puneet Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Angad Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raghavram Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another