Allahabad High Court
Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78664
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3649 of 2024
Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Jaiswal,Mohit Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aditya Vikram,Ali Hasan,G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
(Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 3 of 2024)
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to amend the Head Note and prayer clause of the present anticipatory bail application by adding Sections 323, 504 I.P.C..
(Order on Anticipatory Bail Application)
1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aditya Vikram, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Madhuban, District- Mau.
3. As per prosecution story, the victim got married with Prince Vishwakarma in the year 2013-14 and she was living in Mumbai and during the period, the applicant met with the victim and made physical relation on the false promise that he will solemnize marriage with her. It is alleged that the applicant took her to Noida with her son and performed marriage with her assuring to have relation for whole life. It is also alleged that the applicant and victim lived Noida for three years, in this period, she became pregnant out of the wedlock of Rohit for five months. It is also alleged that the applicant took her to house and he wants to perform his second marriage and he also pressurized her to abort of fetus.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a married lady and without divorce the applicant cannot solemnize marriage with the victim. He submits that as per FIR, the victim became pregnant with her consent. He submits that as per FIR as well as statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. the victim is a consensual party and as such, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. On the other hand, Sri Aditya Vikram, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
6. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, statement of the victim and as parties are consenting party, therefore, no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Rohit Kumar Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Krishna*
