The Allahabad High Court in Parasnath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11587 of 2013, decided on September 25, 2013) granted short-term bail for sixty days to the applicant accused under Sections 376, 313, 494, 420, 506, and 504 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2012 at Police Station Manda, District Allahabad. The Single Bench evaluated submissions regarding consensual relations between consenting adults, delayed allegations following failed marriage negotiations, and ambiguous bank deposits, ordering an interim release while directing further investigation into financial deposit branches.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS BAIL APPLICATION NO. 11587 OF 2013
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
PARASNATH ...APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ...OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER OF THE COURT
Case Background and Factual Matrix
1. This bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant Parasnath who was implicated in Case Crime No. 132 of 2012, under Sections 376, 313, 494, 420, 506, and 504 IPC, registered at Police Station Manda, District Allahabad. In evaluating the Parasnath v State of Uttar Pradesh bail application, the High Court examined the complete factual background, the nature of the accusations, and the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant since his arrest on April 10, 2013.
Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant: Consensual Relations and Marriage Negotiations
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had remained in judicial custody since April 10, 2013. It was emphatically argued that on the relevant dates of the alleged incidents, the prosecutrix was admittedly a major capable of giving free legal consent. From a perusal of the First Information Report (FIR) itself, it was submitted that the relationship was consensual throughout its duration.
The defence highlighted that when the applicant was employed at the Delhi Secretariat, the complainant and her family initiated marriage negotiations with the applicant's family. When these negotiations broke down due to mutual disagreement, the prosecutrix and her relatives became aggrieved and subsequently addressed a formal complaint to the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh. Counsel urged that this demonstrated a case of Section 376 IPC bail on grounds of consensual relationship transformed into criminal prosecution after broken matrimonial talks.
The applicant further contended that neither the FIR nor the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC provided specific particulars, dates, or clinic locations where alleged medical terminations of pregnancy were conducted. Furthermore, no verified documentary proof was placed on record demonstrating that the applicant had remitted funds directly into the bank account of the prosecutrix.
Opposition by State Counsel and Examination of Bank Statements
3. The bail application was opposed by the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), who pointed out that the Investigating Officer (IO) had been summoned along with the bank account statement of the prosecutrix. State counsel argued that multiple financial deposits appeared in her savings account during the period the applicant was stationed in New Delhi, supporting the prosecution narrative regarding allegations of fraudulent marriage and rape under IPC.
4. The Court observed that while the prosecutrix was admittedly an adult on the relevant dates, the question of whether her consent was vitiated by misconception of fact required detailed evidentiary scrutiny at trial. Although the Investigating Officer produced the bank statement of the prosecutrix pursuant to court directions, the records did not conclusively establish that the deposits were made directly by the applicant.
Judicial Scrutiny of Deposit Branches and Inter-Branch Transactions
5. A counter-affidavit was filed before the Court on August 1, 2013, by Inspector Vishram Sonkar of Police Station Manda, Allahabad, annexing the bank account statement of the prosecutrix. Scrutiny of the statement revealed that various sums had been deposited on different dates into her account maintained at State Bank of India (SBI), SME Branch, Naini, Allahabad.
Significantly, most of these cash deposits were not effected at the Naini Branch but originated from Branch No. 10440 (Patel Dham, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi), which was subsequently reassigned Branch Code No. 99999. During that period, the applicant was posted at the Central Secretariat in New Delhi. The bank ledger indicated that inter-branch transaction fees were charged, demonstrating that deposits were made remotely. The Court observed that a banking notation of 'Cash deposit self' does not automatically prove that the account holder deposited the cash in person. These aspects warranted deeper investigation, but pending inquiry, the Court held that indefinite incarceration was unjustified, justifying grant of bail under Section 376 and 313 IPC on short-term terms.
These principles align with established criminal bail application jurisprudence in Uttar Pradesh, balancing personal liberty under Article 21 with investigative integrity.
Short-Term Bail Order and Conditions Imposed
6. In this Allahabad High Court criminal misc bail application, the Single Bench directed that applicant Parasnath involved in Case Crime No. 132 of 2012 under Sections 376, 313, 494, 420, 506, and 504 IPC be released on short-term bail for a period of sixty (60) days commencing from his date of release from jail, subject to executing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The applicant was directed to furnish an explicit undertaking that he would not visit the State Bank of India, Patel Dham Branch (Branch Code No. 99999 / 10440) in New Delhi, nor attempt directly or indirectly to influence witnesses or tamper with the ongoing investigation. Adherence to these conditions reflects standard statutory standards for criminal bail under IPC proceedings.
Directives to Senior Superintendent of Police Allahabad
7. The Court directed that upon expiry of the sixty-day bail period, the applicant must surrender before the trial court. Thereafter, the applicant was granted liberty to move a regular bail application before the High Court.
8. In the interim, the Court ordered that a vital inquiry report regarding the specific cash deposits be obtained through the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Allahabad.
9. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, was directed to depute an officer, preferably of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), to appear before the High Court on October 8, 2013, to receive court instructions for contacting the concerned SBI branch in New Delhi and identifying the individuals who deposited the funds.
10. The presence of the accused or his counsel on that date was made optional. The matter was listed for further consideration on October 8, 2013, with directions to provide a certified copy of the order to the learned AGA for immediate communication to the SSP Allahabad.