Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Suyaib Ansari vs State Of U.P.And Another 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. - 1467 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohd. Suyaib Ansari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- T. Islam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Pandey,Pankaj Dubey
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri T. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0783 of 2021, under Sections 420, 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Lanka, District- Kashi (Commisionarate Varanasi) with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have entered into corporeal relationship with the first informant/victim on the pretext of marrying her. The said corporeal relation is said to have continued for more than three years but later on the applicant had 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. Admittedly, the applicant and the victim are close relatives. Learned counsel has stated that the case is of consent and has been settled by number of judgements of Supreme Court that on entering into corporeal relationship on the false promise of marriage, the case will not be covered under Section 376 IPC. 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 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 counsel for the applicant has stated that an application was filed by the mother of the applicant on 9.10.2021 against the first informant and her father and other family members owing to which the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast. Learned counsel has submitted that in the said case the first informant and her father, Sri Mujibur Rehman has been summoned vide order dated 4.3.2022 of the court concerned at Buxar, Bihar.
Learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant and he has already agitated Section 482 Cr.P.C. by challenging the said final report although he could not dispute the fact that the applicant and first informant are relatives and the first informant has been summoned by order dated 4.3.2022. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant are unable to dispute 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 Mohd. Suyaib Ansari 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
