Kuldeep vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17851

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 957 of 2025

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Haseen Ahmad,Saurabh Basu,Sipte Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶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. 437 of 2024, under sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Ghoorpur, District- Allahabad.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The marriage of the applicant was fixed with the informantvictim. Subsequently, due to certain reasons, the marriage of the applicant could not be solemnized with the informant. Subsequently, the instant FIR has been lodged. The victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has not supported the prosecution version, she stated that the applicant has not acted indecently with her and she does not want to institute any proceedings against the applicant. However, the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has supported the prosecution version. She stated that the applicant established physical relation with her on pretext of marriage and made indecent video. It is contended that the contradiction in the statement of the victim under Sections 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS discredits the prosecution case. No indecent video has been collected by the Investigating Officer. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The named co-accused Hari Shankar (father of the applicant) has been granted anticipatory bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC-2, Prayagraj vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 214 of 2025 (Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P.). 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

¶12

the fact, that there are contradiction in the statement of the victim under Sections 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS, no indecent video of the victim has been collected by the Investigating Officer, the named co-accused Hari Shankar (father of the applicant) has been granted anticipatory bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC-2, Prayagraj, 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 Kuldeep 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 them 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 application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Lbm/-

¶22

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

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anju Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P.

Gufran Khan vs State of U.P.

Krisna Pal and Another vs State of U.P.

Kevla Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Pawar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shubham Kuamr vs State of U.P. and 3 Others