SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 1264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Chaudhary Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Other – Respondents
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.7977 of 2021
Decided on : 11-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Amit Daga
For the Respondent: Akhilesh Mishra, Anshuman Vidhu Chandra, Mehul Khare

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 386, 388, 389, 120-B, 452, 342, 506, 323, 376-D – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164, 482, 82, 83 – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(Va) – Special leave petition – Seeking anticipatory bail – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Punishment for wrongful confinement – House-trespass after preparation for hurt – Criminal conspiracy – Putting person in fear of accusation of offence – Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt – Application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Complaint Case, under Sections 323, 376-D IPC, Police Station-, District, with prayer to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail – Held, N.B.W. and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are already complete and applicant is having criminal antecedents to his credit – Allegations against the applicant are of serious nature – Case law (supra) do not apply to present case – On due consideration to arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties and considering nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and case laws produced by learned counsel for applicant, Court do not find that applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case – Applicant is rejected.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mehul Khare, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Complaint Case no. 1407 of 2018, under Sections 323, 376-D IPC, Police Station-Bhopa, District-Muzaffarnagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:-

3. The complainant Smt. Sangeeta Kaur W/o Dulli Singh had filed a complaint before the Magistrate concerned on 16.11.2016 with the allegation that the complainant is a dalit lady and she was very well conversant with the family of Sushil Chaudhary S/o Dharmveer Singh. The said Sushil is said to have introduced the complainant to one Pratap Singh (applicant) S/o Govind Singh of District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. It was told to the complainant that the applicant is the Chairman of Urban Bank Kashipur and also the Manager of Kisan Inter College, Kundeshwari, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand and the applicant is said to have promised the complainant to get her a nice job. On 24.9.2016 the said Sushil Chaudhary told the husband of complainant that on 25.9.2016 his relative had to come to Morna, Muzaffar Nagar for some personal work. The complainant is said to have reached the Morna Petrol Pump, Muzaffar Nagar, at 12 noon of 25.9.2016. The applicant is said to have come by car No. UK 18 6677 alongwith Sushil and one Deepak of Gurgaon. The husband of complainant is said to have left for his house leaving her behind. The complainant accompanied the applicant and the said persons in their car towards Shukrtaal, Muzaffar Nagar. The applicant and his colleagues got drunk on the way. The applicant is said to have started misbehaving with the complainant. On her protest, she was beaten up and abused and all the aforesaid persons are said to have committed gang rape with her. The applicant is said to have video recorded the same in his mobile. After the said act the complainant is said to have been thrown at Partapur byepass, Meerut. After reaching her house, the complainant informed her husband about the incident, who went to the police station the next day but the police did not take any action whatsoever. The complaint case was filed as such.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:-

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the niece of the applicant namely, Priyanka D/o Lalit Kumar had solemnized a love marriage with one Vipul Kumar many years ago. The applicant had opposed the said love marriage of his niece Priyanka. With the passage of time, the brother of the applicant i.e. father of Priyanka accepted the said love marriage of his daughter and his relations with her husband Vipul Kumar became cordial thereon. Learned counsel has further stated that the said Vipul Kumar, husband of his niece is having criminal antecedents as in all, nine cases are pending against him at various places in West UP and Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The said son-in-law, Vipul Kumar, tried his best to grab the ancestral property of the applicant and his brothers. Learned counsel has further stated that the aforesaid complaint has been filed at the behest of the said niece and her husband Vipul Kumar just to pressurize the applicant, so that he may not hinder them in getting the property of the applicant transferred to him.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the complainant herein had moved an application alongwith the affidavit before the trial court on 20.4.2017 to not to proceed against the accused applicant as the person who had committed rape with her was some other person with the same name Pratap Singh. The said application is annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has further stated that the complainant and her husband Dulli Singh had moved an application supported with the affidavit before the trial court on 17.1.2018 stating therein that the statem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top