Allahabad High Court
Shyam Sunder vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200642
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11459 of 2023
Applicant :- Shyam Sunder
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunita Chauhan,Aditya Pratap Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dev Raj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Pandey, 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.165 of 2021, registered under Sections 376(2), 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Sisolar, District Hamirpur 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 informant after defrauding her on Facebook. Later on, the applicant is stated to have refused to marry her and on much persuasion, the family members of the applicant are stated to have threatened her on dire consequences, whereby the victim was left in lurch with no place to go. The applicant is sated to be a Constable in U.P. Police.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2023 and he has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. 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. 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, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Shyam Sunder 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.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 17.10.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
