Karan Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23788

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 361 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Karan Rawat

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.

¶7

Heard Shri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Nikita Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.334 of 2024 under Sections 69 B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kakori, District- Lucknow.

¶9

The learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application that the applicant has not co-operated with investigation in spite of issuance of a nonbailable warrant and in spite of issuance of a proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. and, therefore , the anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant could not give any reply to the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. and he merely kept on standing in the Court and he did not utter even a single word. The applicant has engaged Shri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate as his counsel to present his case before the court and it was his professional duty to advance submissions before the court so as to endeavor to get an order favorable to his client but he has miserably failed in performance of his professional duties. However, as the question of liberty of the applicant is involved in the present case and the Court is bound to perform its duties even though the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to perform his duties of providing

¶11

assistance to the Court, the Court proceeds to examine the record so as to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.

¶12

A perusal of the relevant extracts of case diary produced before the Court indicates that there is nothing on record to indicate that the nonbailable warrant has actually been served upon the applicant. The proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. has been served by affixing its copy on the door of the applicant’s house on 16.04.2025 and it has directed the applicant to appear before the Court or police within 30 days. The applicant had appeared before the Session Court and sought anticipatory bail prior to issuance of the proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. and this application was rejected on 10.04.2025. The applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail on 22.04.2025, before the period granted to him in the proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. could expire.

¶13

In these circumstances, I am of the view that the anticipatory bail application should not to be dismissed on the preliminary ground and it needs to be decided on its merits.

¶14

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 30.12.2024 stating that the informant’s mother died on 02.10.2022 and shortly thereafter her marriage was settled with the applicant, who is son of Suresh Kumar Rawat, a relative of the informant. Since her marriage had already been settled with the applicant, the informant started talking to him on phone. On 25.09.2024, the applicant took her with him under pretext of going to temple with her mother but he took her alone in his car, gave her a cold drink laced with some intoxicated substance, took her to Rawat Palace, Ghaila, Lucknow and raped her. The informant further alleged that the applicant video-graphed the incident with two unknown persons who were present there and and since then he is blackmailing her and exploiting her physically, mentally and financially. Afterwards, in talks with the applicant, the informant came to know that the incident is in knowledge of the applicant’s father, his two wives and two daughters and they are also responsible for the incident.

¶15

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 20 years having no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶16

The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and produced the relevant extracts of case diary for perusal of the Court which contain the statements of the informant and her relatives recorded by the trial Court, who have supported the informant’s version.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant has stated about her marriage having been settled and in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she has stated that she is aged 21 years and from which it appears that the informant is major and is of marriageable age whereas the age of the applicant as of now is 20 years, therefore, he is not of marriageable age and his marriage could not have been settled in the year 2022 when he would not have been even major; that the applicant is a young boy having no criminal history and he has undertaken in his affidavit to co-operate with the investigation and trial, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Karan Rawat before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./ Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶20

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶21

(ii) that 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;

¶22

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court’

¶23

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶24

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶26

Order Date: 25.04.2025

¶27

-Amit K-