Kumari Neha Pandey (Minor) vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 8585 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12615 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Kumari Neha Pandey (Minor)
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Raj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

(1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that she has every reason to believe that she may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.0475 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali , District-Ballia.

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his/their anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions.

(4) Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :

"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."

(5) After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(3) ADJ 575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.

(6) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

(7) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that she would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

(8) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch her reputation and belittle her in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his/their contentions.

(9) In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the minor girl and the sister of the prime accused-Saurabh who allegedly eloped the girl namely Miss 'X'. The victim was eventually recovered and she disclosed in her 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement that she has married to prime accused Saurabh and performed the marriage in temple. Now, she is carrying pregnancy of seven months from Saurabh. As per radiological report, her age comes around 18-19 years. It is also contended that Saurabh was initially arrested but now he has been bailed out. Presently, Saurabh and Miss 'X' are residing peacefully as husband and wife. Keeping in view the special circumstance where the prime accused is residing peacefully with her wife, no useful purpose would be served to hunt the applicant.

(10) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicants have got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant/applicants to arrest him/them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant/applicants is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

(11) After considering the record of the case as available before the Court, in the light of rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, her undertaking to make herself available to the authorities whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that it would be expedient to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant.

(12) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant/applicants in aforesaid case crime, he/they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till further orders of the Court with the conditions that :

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him/them for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicants would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

(iv) In the event the applicant is having her passport, she will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

(13) In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains herself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

(14) Learned A.G.A. is directed to file counter affidavit within a period of six weeks.

(15) Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

(16) List thereafter.

Order Date :- 26.7.2021

Sumit S