Sanjiv Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 12938 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3974 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjiv Pratap Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.

2. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 143 of 2022, under Sections 147, 376, 392, 341, 354, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Aadampur, District- Varanasi.

3. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have befriended the first informant/victim on facebook, as such, he is stated to have established corporeal relationship with her, and is stated to have even got the video recorded by concealment. The applicant is stated to have even taken Rs. 1 lakh by blackmailing her. The said relationship is stated to have continued till 2022. Despite the said relationship, the applicant is stated to have married elsewhere.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has next stated that the investigation is going on and the investigation officer has only found the allegations under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC only. 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 Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2022, 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.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is not co-operating in the investigation and the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., have been initiated against him on 26.3.2023 by declaring him a proclaimed offender. The present application has been filed in this Court on 28.3.2023 i.e. two days later than the said proclamation, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail in light of the judgement of the Apex Court in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730.

6. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the facts of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertains to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at this stage.

7. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Order Date :- 26.4.2023

Shalini