Allahabad High Court
Rajat Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 20278 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajat Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh,Satya Prakash Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Jitendra Prasad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satya Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0514 of 2020, under Sections 376, 328, 506 IPC, Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have met the informant during train journey and later on, he is said to have come at her house and after administering some noxious substance to her and making her unconscious, he is stated to have committed rape with her. Later on, the applicant is stated to have entered into a corporeal relationship with her on the pretext that he shall marry her and continued it for a period of nine months. Later on, the applicant is stated to have refused to marry her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The FIR is delayed by about nine months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgments of Apex Court passed in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting married cannot be termed as rape.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the present case is of honey trap as the informant is habitual of lodging such kind of prosecution against different persons and as per his knowledge, there is another FIR No.109 of 2018 lodged at the same police station by the same informant against one Dileep levelling allegations of outraging her modesty and of robbing her. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application which is FIR No.109 of 2018. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2022. The final report (charge-sheet) has now been filed and he has not misused the said opportunity granted to him. The applicant is ready to cooperate in trial also. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.
Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant, Rajat Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
4. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
Siddhant
