Allahabad High Court
Saurabh Pandey vs State Of ... on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58067
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 407 of 2022
Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Home Lko.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Priya Srivastava
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Ms. Anjali Dubey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Jai Prasad Yadav, the learned counsel for the informant.
2. The appellant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 15.03.2022 which reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Rajiv Mishra and Ms. Soniya Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and 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 Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections 147, 498-A, 323, 504, 376 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Husainganj, District Lucknow, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have attained acquaintance with the victim herein on the phone and one day the applicant called the victim at the railway station Charbagh, Lucknow, and took the victim to his friend's house and raped her. After said offence of rape, the parents of the applicant are stated to have been called by applicant and he is stated to have agreed to marry the victim. In the meantime, the victim is said to have become pregnant, thereupon a marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir was entered into between the two parties, but the applicant refused to accept the victim as a married wife socially and did not enter into a social marriage in public. After some time, applicant is said to have taken Rs. 10,00,000/- from the victim and one day, applicant alongwith co-accused persons, Pramod Pandey, Nirmala Pandey, Gaurav Pandey @ Luv Pandey, Dabblu Tiwari and 8-10 other unknown persons came to the house of victim and assaulted her. The victim moved an application before the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the FIR was lodged as such.
Learned counsel for applicant has stated that victim is used to trapping persons by luring them into having physical relations and this is the third time the victim has lured the applicant on the pretext of having physical relationship. Learned counsel has cited various documents and photographs of previous marriage and particularly, he has cited FIR lodged against one Kishan Kumar Gupta by moving an application before the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation failing which the State can move appropriate application for vacation of the interim protection.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., Sri Vinay Kumar Sahi and learned counsel for first informant, Sri R.P. Srivastava have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said offence does not come within the category of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the applicant has himself filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights with the victim, which falsifies the said defence of applicant.
Matter requires consideration.
Three weeks' time is granted to learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant to file counter affidavit.
One week's time, thereafter, is granted to learned counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit.
On due consideration to the arguments advance by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant, as an interim measure, is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant- Saurabh Pandey shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required;
(ii) 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; and
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
List on 26th April, 2022 in the additional cause list.
The name of Ms. Soniya Mishra be shown in the cause list as counsel for applicant, when the case is next listed."
3. The State has filed a counter annexing therewith copies of statements recorded during investigation. The informant has not filed any counter affidavit.
4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the charge sheet dated 05.03.2022.
5. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant informs that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in compliance of the aforesaid interim order.
7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the investigation already stands completed and a charge sheet has also been submitted and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, I am of the view that the anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the interim order dated 15.03.2022 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
Pradeep/-
