Reserved on:15.09.

2022
Delivered on:19.09.2022

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1516 of 2022

Applicant :- Yashveer Pratap Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Vikas Vikram
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Romit Seth,Sushil Kumar
Singh

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

Heard Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh (S.K. Singh), learned counsel
assisted by Sri Romit Seth for the opposite party-complainant
and Sri Vivek Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents
and perused record.

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438

Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the
accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with
FIR/Case Crime No. 0284 of 2022, under Sections 120-B, 328,
376, 386, 387, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Ghazipur,
District Lucknow.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix
whereas the applicant has committed no offence. It is submitted
that the prosecutrix and the applicant were in love with each
other and used to spend time at public places and hotels as well.
Counsel further submits that there was consensual physical
relationship between them and most of the bookings of the hotel
was done by the complainant-prosecutrix herself through online
booking applications on her phone. It is further submitted that
the applicant used to have regular and long conversation and
chatting through social media apps like Instagram etc. The said
chatting indicates that the applicant and the prosecutrix had
relationship and had love with each other. It has been further
submitted that the applicant is a student of Diploma in Civil
Engineer from Invertis University, Bareilly whereas the
prosecutrix is also presently studying in Amity University and
pursuing Bachelor of Designing Course and both are major and
educated persons and are fully capable of taking decision of
their life. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant
that one cannot believe that rape can be committed against the
prosecutrix because no force was ever used by the applicant and
the consensual physical relationship continued for long time. It
has been argued that the applicant never threatened the
complainanat-prosecutrix or her family members nor he used
any photographs to blackmail the prosecutrix but the F.I.R. has
been lodged just to give colour to the effect that the applicant
had clicked naked photographs of the complainant while she
was taking bath; in fact they were in love and the physical
relation was made out of free consent. It has been submitted
that as per Parcha No. 9, the Investigating Officer has recorded
the statement mentioning therein that the complainant and his
family members did not produce any photograph and video,
therefore, Section 354/354B I.P.C. have been deleted. Counsel
for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court to
audio call and chatting which had taken place between them
and has submitted that the chatting indicates that they have
remained in love. Counsel for the applicant has further
submitted that the bail application was filed on 30.08.2022 and
he is continuously doing pairavi of the present case and non
bailable warrant has been issued during this period, therefore,
no adverse inference may be drawn against the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgments rendered in
Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another [Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2021, Arising out of
SLP (Crl) No. 11218 of 2019, decided on 01.03.2021 and
Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in [(2020)
10 SCC 108] on the subject of consensual physical relationship.

On the other hand, Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing

for the complainant-prosecutrix has submitted that offence is
serious in nature and applicant blackmailed the prosecutrix and
committed rape against her will. It has been submitted by the
counsel for the complainant that the applicant had filed a writ
petition before a Division Bench of the Court, which was
dismissed and no relief was granted, therefore, the applicant is
not entitled for anticipatory bail. Sri S.K. Singh, counsel for the
complainant has submitted that the applicant has not appeared
either before the Investigating Officer or before the court and
therefore non bailable warrant has been issued, therefore, his
bail application may be rejected. Sri S.K. Singh, counsel for the
complainant has relied upon a judgment of the case of Ankur
Mishra [Anticipatory Bail Cancellation] Vs. State of U.P.
and 2 Others [Bail No. 8300 of 2019, decided on 01.10.2019].
He has also relied upon judgments rendered in Jai Prakash
Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in [(2012) 4
SCC 379] and has submitted that while granting bail the nature
of offence and seriousness should be taken into consideration as
per the aforesaid judgments. He has submitted that the applicant
had clicked naked photographs of the prosecutrix that is why he
was blackmailing the prosecutrix and rape was committed
against her will.

Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail, but could
not dispute the facts submitted by the counselfor the applicant.
Considering the over all factual aspect, I invite counter affidavit
in the present case to be filed by the opposite parties within a
period of two weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week

thereafter.

List on the expiry of the aforesaid period.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, prima facie it appears that

in the meanwhile, the applicant who is involved in
aforementioned case crime is entitled to be granted interim
anticipatory bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail

application is allowed.

Consequently, considering the overall facts and circumstances,

nature of F.I.R. and the manner of allegation of rape and
argument of consensual physical relationship, I grant interim
anticipatory bail to the applicant till the next date of listing or
till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.,
whichever is earlier and direct that the accused-applicant,
namely, Yashveer Pratap Singh be released on interim
anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned and after the concerned court verifying the sureties
before issuing release order, subject to following conditions:

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for

interrogation by police authorities as and when required and
will cooperate with the investigation;

(ii) That the accused-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; and

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court.

(iv) The applicant 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
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 against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

ground for cancellation of bail.

The papers regarding bail submitted to the police officer on

behalf of the accused/applicants shall form part of the case
diary and would be submitted to the court concerned along with
same at the time of submission of report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the

applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in
forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the
witnesses.

Order Date :- 19.9.2022

Arun K. Singh

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR

SINGH
Date: 2022.09.19 19:31:29 IST
Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench