Allahabad High Court
Shani Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148832
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8019 of 2023
Applicant :- Shani Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Murli Dhar Yadav,Dheeraj Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kailash Singh, Advocate holding brief of Murli Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.155 of 2023, registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Handiya, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the daughter of the informant on the pretext that he shall marry her and later on, he is stated to have refused to do so. Earlier on, both were caught in a compromising state by the family members.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party. Learned counsel has further stated that as per school certificate, her age is 18 years and 4 months on the date of FIR. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is also settled by Apex Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced 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 is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". 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.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Shani Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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 the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 26.7.2023/Ravi Kant
