Anurag Rawal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 20400 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Anurag Rawal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100971
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5589 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Anurag Rawal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Sections 420, 376, 504, 506, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh (U.P.) during the pendency of trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that age of the victim at the time of incident was 22 years and she was a major lady. It is submitted that she was a consenting party and she had love affair with the applicant. Primarily, she refused to undergo for her medical examination but when the anticipatory bail application of the applicant was refused by the Session Court, after two days she moved an application for medical examination. Even otherwise nothing adverse has been noted on the basis of her internal and external examination. Since the applicant, being major, was a consenting party, therefore, no offence under Section 376 is made out against the applicant.

4. It has been stated that applicant is having apprehension of imminent arrest and that applicant has no criminal history to his credit and that in case, he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Patna High Court passed in Rohitash Kuamr vs. State of Bihar passesd in Criminal Misc. No. 3774 of 2023

5. Per-contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant established physical relations forcibly in spite of refusal made by the victim. During her statement under Section 164 Cr PC she consistently corroborated this fact that applicant established physical relations forcibly against her consent.

6. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of the trial. Thus, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.

7. The application stands dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 3.6.2024

Mohit