Allahabad High Court
Amir @ Mohd. Amir vs State Of U.P. on 1 November, 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. - 10559 of 2022
Applicant :- Amir @ Mohd. Amir
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, 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 applicants in F.I.R. No. 07 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Jeanpur, District Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant and the victim had agreed to marry each other and the victim had sent some intimate videos of her to him on mobile and later on, both of them are said to have entered into corporeal relationship, but after the said relationship having been established between the parties, the applicant is said to have refused to marry her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has also stated that the victim is aged about 24 years and as per the medical report also, her age is 22 years. There is no criminal history of the applicant. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. 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.
Learned counsel for the applicant 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 marriage cannot be termed as rape.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but has not disputed the fact that applicant has no criminal history.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by 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) 5 SCC 1", the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant Amir @ Mohd. Amir be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
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 the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 1.11.2022
Shalini
