High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5025 of 2022 Appellant :- Nitin Chauhan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hasan Parvej Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Rejoinder filed today is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) The appellant and the first informant had love affairs prior to their marriage; (b) The marriage of the appellant with the first informant was solemnized on 04.04.2022; It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 18.06.2022 is set aside. Let appellant/applicant, Nitin Chauhan Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) 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. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 of Cr.P.C. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 31.10.2022 aks Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Shri C.P Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Hasan Parvez, learned counsel for the second respondent and Shri R.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State a and perused the material on record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, Nitin Chauhan to set aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly has rejected the bail application No. 2020 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 378 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 376, 506, IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 12.05.2022 has been lodged by the victim against the appellant and five named family members stating that prior of filing of F.I.R, victim and the appellant were known to each other from Instagram and developed friendship. On 13.05.2021, mother of the appellant agreed to solemnize marriage of the appellant with the first informant, therefore, appellant made physical relation with her. On 04.04.2022, the appellant solemnized marriage with her in the presence of relatives and friends. After marriage, the appellant and the first informant went to the Nainital. After that the appellant and other co-accused persons demanded Rs. 10 lacs as dowry. After lodging the first information report, statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 15.05.2022. After recording statement of other prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet has been submitted against the present appellant and investigation against five named accused persons is going on. The appellant was arrested on 06.06.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per allegation of the F.I.R, marriage between the present appellant and first informant was solemnized on 04.04.2022. It is further submitted that allegation of physical relation by the appellant with the first informant was made on 13.05.2021 on the pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that the appellant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C against the victim which was treated as complaint case. The appellant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.