Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1214 (ALL)

Anshu Gupta v. State of U. P.

2021-10-07

RAHUL CHATURVEDI

body2021
JUDGMENT : [Rahul Chaturvedi, J.] 1. Heard Shri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ''S.C./S.T. Act'') has been filed targeting the bail rejection order dated 5.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Kanpur Nagar in Bail Application No. 3807 of 2020 (Anshu Gupta v. State of U.P) arising out of Case Crime No. 559 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maharajpur, District-Kanpur Nagar. The appellant is in jail since 10.10.2021. 3. Office report dated 4.8.2021 indicates that as per report of C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar dated 8.1.2021, the notices were duly served upon opposite party No. 2 personally but she has neither engaged any counsel nor filed any counter-affidavit. 4. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter-affidavit, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to file rejoinder-affidavit and wants to argue the case on merits. Under circumstances, with the help and aid of learned A.G.A. the Court is proposing to decide the appeal on merits. 5. Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that opposite party No. 2 Preeti has lodged two F.I.Rs., namely, Case Crime No. 520 of 2020 and Case Crime No. 559 of 2020, P.S. Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar. In earlier F.I.R. which was lodged on 4.9.2020 for the incident of 10.8.2020 under Section 504, 506 I.P.C., she clearly states that she was got married with the appellant Anshu Gupta on 13.1.2020 and thereafter declined to identify her and submitted that he has not married with her and extended threats to her life. In the subsequent F.I.R. lodged on 8.1.2020 against the sole named accused person Anshu Gupta, she states that in the month of June, 2014 she was earlier married to one Dharmendra Kuril from whom she has got two kids but on account of certain misunderstanding both of them started living separately from each other. In the subsequent F.I.R. lodged on 8.1.2020 against the sole named accused person Anshu Gupta, she states that in the month of June, 2014 she was earlier married to one Dharmendra Kuril from whom she has got two kids but on account of certain misunderstanding both of them started living separately from each other. Thereafter, the victim met with the appellant and on the pretext of false marriage the appellant has developed certain amount of intimate relationship with the victim, in which they have crossed the limit of decency and decorum and established physical relationship, which lasted up to one and half years. After ravishing the victim for a considerable long period, now the appellant has declined to marry her. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the victim is herself is a destitute lady of about 30-35 years and a mother of two kids, whereas the appellant is a young lad of 20-21 years. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is yawning gap in the age of both the parties and maintaining intimate relationship for one and half years itself speaks volume about their inter se relationship, which need not to be described. 6. So far as the extension of false promise to marry is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant to buttress his contention has relied upon two judgements pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019 SC 327 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 903. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra), that consensual sex between live-in partners cannot amount to rape after a relationship ends and the man fails to marry her due to circumstances beyond his control. 7. After taking the guidance from the aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court, it seems that no fraud or forgery was played by the appellant. The intimate relationship between the duo were consensual and lasted for a considerable long period. 7. After taking the guidance from the aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court, it seems that no fraud or forgery was played by the appellant. The intimate relationship between the duo were consensual and lasted for a considerable long period. So far as the offence relating to SC/ST Act is concerned, there is no witness to the abuses or caste related derogatory remarks as alleged in the F.I.R. Even assuming for the sake of argument to be true on the face value, whatever version has been made, was made within the four walls of the house and not openly in public, so as to make the victim humiliated on account of her caste. 8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts. 9. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. 10. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 11. Let the appellant-Anshu Gupta, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice : (i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN 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. (iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT 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 AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 12. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court. 13. Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused/appellant who belongs to a higher caste, after his release, may create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial and may extend allurement and threats to the informant, his family members as well as other witnesses, thus, it is directed that in such eventuality, all these complaints may be raised by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of complainant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members. 14. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 5.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Kanpur Nagar, is hereby set aside.