Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12704 of 2023 Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.313 of 2023, registered under Sections 376, 506, 379, 313, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station-Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have gone to attend a function at Mainpuri and the victim is stated to have been sent with the applicant to drop her at Farrukhabad, whereby on getting late, the applicant and the victim are stated to have stayed in a hotel at Farrukhabad and the applicant is stated to have raped her there in the night of 26.07.2022. The applicant is stated to have video recorded the said act. Subsequent to it, the applicant and the victim are stated to have entered into corporeal relationship several times on the pretext that he shall marry her. The victim is stated to have forced to abort her fetus twice. Later on, the applicant is stated to have refused to marry her, as such she had to institute the present FIR.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by one year and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is mentioned in the FIR that the victim had given an application to the S.P. concerned on 24.04.2023, which itself is delayed by about three months. The applicant is an employee in the Indian Army and has nothing to do with the said offence. The victim is 23 years old lady and the applicant is 4 years younger to her.

¶6Several 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.

¶7Per 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.

¶8On 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.

¶9In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Satendra Kumar 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.

¶10It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad