Allahabad High Court
Eshan Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100424
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5034 of 2023
Applicant :- Eshan Chaudhary
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Madhukar Maurya,Rishabh Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Prakash Gupta,Satya Prakash Gupta
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Madhukar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0777 of 2020, registered under Sections 376(2)(N), 323, 366, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Pakbara, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have met the informant on a website Jeevan Sathi.com. and both had befriended each other and the applicant is stated to have fleeced and fooled the informant and entered into corporeal relationship with her on 08.08.2020 and is stated to have continued to do so on the pretext that he shall get her photographs uploaded on porn site. After much persuasion, the applicant is stated to have married the informant in a temple. Subsequent to it, the applicant is stated to have demanded a dowry of Rs.50 lakhs from the informant and had stated that he shall not validate the said marriage, as such had refused to entertain the informant. The FIR was instituted by the informant on 16.12.2020.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR itself is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused as the offence is stated to have been committed between 08.08.2020 to 24.10.2020. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim was a consenting party and there is no medical report to corroborate the prosecution story. The police was pleased to file closure report in the said case and after having filed a protest petition by the informant, the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 28.10.2022 as the said protest petition was allowed. Learned counsel has further stated that the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. are self contradictory.
7. 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 and has stated that as such no offence is made out against the applicant. 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.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that earlier on a compromise had entered into between the parties, as such the said closure report was filed, but subsequent to it, the applicant had come to the house of the informant and had beaten her up and even broken the bone of her hand, although they have categorically stated that there is no FIR instituted to the said incident.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, taking into consideration the fact that the said corporeal relationship was established by consent and also the fact that the closure report was filed, 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- Eshan Chaudhary 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 below 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 :- 10.5.2023
Ravi Kant
