Allahabad High Court
Kasif Ansari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47800
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9232 of 2023
Applicant :- Kasif Ansari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shadab Waheed,Ashok Kumar Singh,Syed Raza Mehdi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.223 of 2023, under Section 313, 323, 376, 377, 504, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gazipur, District -Lucknow.
3.The FIR in question lodged alleging that the victim was known to the applicant and were staying together since the year 2017. It was alleged that the applicant used to promise her to marry and had promised that he will marry in November, 2022. It was stated that on 05.12.2021, engagement ceremony took place at Lucknow, wherein the applicant had given her engagement ring. Subsequently, on account of physical relation, she became pregnant and after she became pregnant, the applicant refused to marry her as such the FIR in question was lodged on 5.6.2023. The Statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are to the same effect, in short, the prosecution story is that the applicant and the prosecutrix were staying together for almost six years and despite the engagement, he is now refusing to marry her after she became pregnant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant places reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 9 SCC 608 and argues that in the said judgment, the Supreme Court while dealing with the 'consent' of women with respect to Section 375 IPC can be vitiated by the 'misconception of the fact' arising out of the promise to marry and to establish the same two propositions must be established. First, the promise of marriage must have been a false promise given in bad faith and which no inception of being adhered to at the time it was given. Second, the false promise made, must be of immediate relevance or to attract nexus to the women to engage in the sexual act. In the light of the said, counsel for applicant argues that no case of inception not to marry is made out against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 7.6.2023 as such he is entitled to be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel for victim and learned AGA strongly opposes the bail application and heavy reliance is place upon the order passed by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein the Court had refused to quash proceedings by holding that the facts of the said case are different from the facts in the case ofPramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra). In the light of the said, it is argued that the bail application deserves to be rejected.
6. Considering the submissions made at bar, it is well settled that the criteria for quashing the proceedings are different from the criteria for enlargement on bail. In the present case, admittedly, the victim and the accused stayed together for almost six years and were engaged in physical relations. The factum of ring ceremony clearly demonstrates that there was no intention since the inception not to marry, as such the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofPramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) will squarely apply to the fact of the present case. Considering the fact the applicant is in custody since 7.6.2023 and has no previous criminal antecedent, hence the bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicantKasif Ansari be released on bail in Case Crime No.223 of 2023, under Section 313, 323, 376, 377, 504, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gazipur, District -Lucknow on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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 :- 21.7.2023
-Amit K-
