Allahabad High Court
Susheel Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru.Secy.Home Lko. ... on 17 July, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46418
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10027 of 2022
Applicant :- Susheel Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Secy.Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Tribhuvan Narai Singh,Dharm Trivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajneesh Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Sudhanshu Verma, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Rajneesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The FIR in question allege that the applicant on the pretext of marrying had exploited the victim. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that they knew each other for almost one year and were in love. It was stated that on the date of the incident, the applicant came to the house of the victim and was caught and he promised there that he would marry the victim and thereafter, a promise was also made in the presence of the elders and the family members, however, now the applicant has refused to marry. A similar statement was made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The age of the victim is 18 years as per the high school certificate, which is on record.
3. In the light of the said, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that admittedly the applicant and the victim, both, were in consensual relationship, thus, no case is made out. The applicant is in custody since 06.07.2022 and has no criminal antecedent.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA argue that admittedly the applicant had promised to marry and in the garb of the said promise had exploited the victim for almost one year. It is further argued that in fact, the applicant had also entered into a settlement and he has resiled from the said settlement by refusing to marry.
5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the case is clearly that the applicant in the garb of promise of marriage has exploited the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon a judgment in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2019 decided on 21.08.2019 to argue that mere promise of marriage could not be enough to attract the prosecution under Section 376 IPC.
6. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the sufficiency of evidence. Considering the nature of the submissions made coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 06.07.2022 and has no criminal antecedent, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant Susheel Kumar be released on bail in FIR No.381 of 2022, under Section 376, 420, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Gola, District Kheri on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;
(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and
(c) 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.
Order Date :- 17.7.2023
nishant
