Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Sunil Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 6 February, 2023

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10335 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra,Chandra Mohan Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Prasad Chaurasia,Tulsi Ram Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

Crl. Misc. Application No. 3 of 2022 Heard.

This Court has passed order dated 21.11.2022, which reads as under :

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.0439 of 2021, under Sections 147, 354, 406, 504, 506,376 (added) IPC and Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.
3. As per allegation in the F.I.R. the husband of the prosecutrix died in the year 2019. The accused-applicant and co-accused Ritish, who were known to the prosecutrix and were her husband's friends, started visiting the house of the prosecutrix and won over her trust. The husband of the prosecutrix had taken loan and as a security thereof had pledged the flat where the prosecutrix is living with her children. She had one Innova Crysta Car, which the accused-applicant and the co-accused took on the pretext that they would pay the installments of the Bank and also give Rs.20,000.00 per month to her as rent of the car, as co-accused Ritish was running a Travelling Agency, but not even a single penny was paid in respect of the said car taken by the accused-applicant and co-accused. The accused-applicant and the co-accused got to know that the prosecutrix was having some amount in her bank account. On 10.10.2019 the accused-applicant, co-accused and some other unknown persons reached the house of the prosecutrix and started misbehaving with her and also molsted her and filmed the act. They threatened that if the prosecutrix did not give the money lying in the bank-account, they would not only kill her children, but also destroy her life by making the video viral. The prosecutrix under the fear of death of her children, gave Rs. 10 lacs to the accused-applicant. It is further said that on various occasions putting the prosecutrix and her minor children on fear of life the accused-applicant and the co-accused Ritish extracted more than Rs. 32 lacs from her. In her statement under section164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix also made the allegations of rape.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the accused-applicant had taken Rs.25 lacs from the prosecutrix, out of which he has given back Rs. 6 lacs and Rs. 19 lacs is still to be paid to the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that for this reason a false allegation of rape has has been made. He further says that the accused-applicant is ready to give back Rs.25 lacs to the prosecutrix, if he is released on an interim bail for a period of one month.
5. Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. submits that the accused-applicant may be enlarged on interim bail to test his bona fide that he would pay Rs.25 lacs within the said period of one month of interim bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and also taking into account that the accused-applicant is ready to pay Rs. 25 lacs, besides Rs. 6 lacs which he has allegedly already paid, the accused-applicant, Sunil Kumar Singh is enlarged on interim bail of one month on furnishing one personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, on the following conditions:
i.) The accused-applicant shall bring a bank-draft of Rs.25 lacks favouring the prosecutrix on the next date of listing of this bail-application.
ii.) The accused-applicant shall not in any manner threaten the prosecutrix or her children or commit any offence. He will not influence any other witnesses.
List this bail-application on 3.1.20222 peremptorily."

As per aforesaid order the accused-applicant was granted interim bail to fulfill the condition that he shall bring a Bank draft of Rs. 25,00,000/- in favour of prosecutrix on the next date of listing. The case was next listed on 3.1.2023 but no such Bank draft favouring prosecutrix was shown to the Court, however the applicant was released on bail on 15.12.2022. On 3.1.2023 the application for extension of time was not traceable on record, therefore, the case was again listed on 9.1.2023.

On 9.1.2023 the order was passed to put up the paper-book before the Hon'ble Chief Justice / Hon'ble Senior Judge to pass appropriate orders and the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide administrative order dated 2.1.2023 directed to list the case before the Hon'ble Court as per roster.

The case was again listed on 18.1.2023 and 28.1.2023 but the compliance of the order dated 21.11.2022 has not been made as no Bank draft in question has been shown to the Court.

Today, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the financial condition of the applicant is not good, therefore, he could not prepare the Bank draft in terms of order dated 21.11.2022.

Learned counsel has further submitted that aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- is a big amount inasmuch as he has already been given Rs. 6,00,000/- to the prosecutrix and this fact has been considered in order dated 21.11.2022.

Considering the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the applicant and also perusing the order dated 21.11.2022, I find that since the condition of interim bail has not been followed / adhered to, therefore, the interim bail is cancelled.

The applicant shall surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days from today, failing which he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail.

Learned AGA shall inform this order to the S.H.O., Madiyaon, Lucknow telephonically, e-mode, whatsapp or any other convenient mode for necessary action.

List this case on 28.2.2023.

In view of above, application for extension is rejected.

.

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 6.2.2023 Om