Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Kumar @ Banti vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190173
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10886 of 2023
Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar @ Banti
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi,Pranshu Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prem Chand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, 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. 1037 of 2018, under Sections 323, 376, 504 IPC, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
3. As per prosecution story, the victim is stated to have gone to the house of the applicant and had appeared in the examination of MBA, as such, the applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with her at the behest of other co-accused persons. The applicant is stated to have promised her to marry her after he is accorded a government job. Subsequent to getting the government job, the applicant is stated to have refused to marry her, as such, had left her in lurch and nowhere to go.
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 FIR is delayed by about five years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is next stated that all the allegations in the FIR are vague and cannot be substantiated by any evidence, whatsoever. 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 no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
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. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant had challenged the charge sheet by filing Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23750 of 2019 and he was granted interim protection but in light of the judgement of the Apex Court passed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299, the said interim protection has been dispensed with, as such, coercive measures have been taken against the applicant. It is stated that the Application is still pending.
7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
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, Ravindra Kumar @ Banti 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 :- 4.10.2023
Shalini
