Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10568 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?
 

 
Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3497 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Manoj Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 536 of 2020, under Sections 376, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Transport Nagar, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is Inspector in Income Tax Department. He further submitted that the marriage of the applicant and victim was fixed and in pursuance of which date of ring ceremony was fixed on 12.9.2019 but on 10.9.2019 one Ritesh Kumar came and given the information to the applicant that he and victim are in love affairs. On the information given by Ritesh Kumar, applicant and family members of the applicant denied for marriage on 11.9.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on the denial of marriage by the family members of the applicant, victim and her family members pressurized the applicant and his family members for marriage. When the applicant and his family members were not ready for marriage then the father and brother of the victim including victim herself committed 'marpit' with the applicant and his family members. Therefore, father of the applicant lodged F.I.R. against the victim and her family members as case crime no. 1187 of 2020 under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Mother of the victim lodged false and frivolous F.I.R. against the applicant on 11.8.2020 as case crime no. 536 of 2020 under Sections 376, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act regarding delaying in ring ceremony and denial of marriage for demand of dowry and rape committed by the applicant upon victim on 13.1.2020 in Ghaziabad at Hotel.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the marriage has been fixed between the applicant and victim and due to this reason consensus relationship has been developed between the applicant and victim. Therefore, no disclosed offence is made out against the applicant, as the victim is major and consenting party. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ansaar Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2022) decided on 14.7.2022 in which it has been held that:-

"(4) In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be ground for lodging an F.I.R. for the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) I.P.C."

Facts of the present case is also same, as in the present case, the victim is major and consensus relationship was developed between the victim and the applicant, therefore, no case of rape is arisen. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the applicant has got protection by this Court till the filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 8.9.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8960 of 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after investigation in the present case first FR was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 24.10.2020, thereafter, second FR was filed on 12.12.2020 and the third FR was filed on 11.6.2021. The protest petition was filed in the present case. The applicant was summoned to face the trial. Further submission is that the applicant fully cooperated with the investigation and there is no need of custodial interrogation, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

In the event of arrest the applicant is arrested, he shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

1. The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

2. The applicant shall surrender passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. The passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

3. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.

6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

It is made clear that the observations in the present order are only for the purposes of deciding the anticipatory bail application. The investigation shall proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the present order.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 / Anuj Singh