Allahabad High Court
Minta Chaudhary @ Binta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178670
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10418 of 2023
Applicant :- Minta Chaudhary @ Binta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Minta Chaudhary @ Binta in Case Crime No.329 of 2022, registered under Sections 493, 313, 323, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Naini, District- Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
3. As per prosecution story, the husband of the applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the married informant herein on the false promise of marriage for a period of about five years. During the said period, the husband of the applicant is stated to have got terminated her pregnancy twice. Charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim was a consenting party to the relationship. The victim herself is a married lady and she used to file frivolous FIRs and complaint against several persons. The applicant is the wife of the main accused Manoj. Learned counsel has further 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 held that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting married cannot always be termed as rape. The applicant has no criminal history to her credit.
5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant, have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that she 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. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the fact that earlier Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8950 of 2022 was moved by the named accused persons before this Court wherein vide order dated 16.7.2022 interim protection was granted to them but subsequently the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration application of the same is pending, as averred in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application and as such at present the aforesaid writ petition is not in existence. It is also submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC no specific role in respect of termination of pregnancy of the victim has been assigned to the present applicant. It is lastly submitted that co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 25.8.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6486 of 2023.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the factual 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, and also keeping in view the fact that the major and married prosecutrix stayed and continued to live with the main accused Manoj for a period of about five years, being fully aware of the fact that she herself is a married lady and never resisted to that and the present applicant is the wife of the main accused, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till end of trial 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. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed accordingly.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make herself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023
safi
