Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145404
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6374 of 2023
Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0180 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
3. As per prosecution story, the husband of the informant was mentally retarded, as such, he had abandoned her about six years ago. Subsequent to it, the applicant is stated to have kept her in an outhouse of the temple and had stated that he shall marry her. The applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with her on the said promise. Her two children also used to live thereat. With the passage of time, after about six years, the applicant is stated to have refused to marry her and it came to the knowledge of the informant that the applicant was already married. Thus the applicant is stated to have ruined her life.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the allegations in the FIR are false. No offence of rape is made out against the applicant. The offence made out against the applicant, if any, tantamounts to adultery.
5. 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.
6. 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. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one case, which stands explained and he is not wanted in the said case. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the 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 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.
9. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Mukesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii. 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;
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 21.7.2023
Shalini
