Allahabad High Court
Anuj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11077 of 2021
Applicant :- Anuj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri S. Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the applicant-Anuj and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
2. This application claiming anticipatory bail application has been filed being aggrieved of order dated 05.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Ghaziabad in first Anticipatory Bail Application No.280 of 2021, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail application in regard to Crime No.144 of 2002, under Sections 363, 366 IPC registered at Police Station-Link Road, District-Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and the so called victim, they are married to each other and their marriage was performed and registered under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in the Office of A.D.M. (City)/Special Marriage Officer, Meerut on 16.01.2003. It is submitted that applicant and the so called victim are staying together as husband and wife and, therefore, no useful purpose is going to be achieved, if applicant is forced to surrender before the trial court and participate in the trial.
4. Learned AGA in his turn submits that charge-sheet was filed in the case on 19.12.2002 and thereafter applicant had filed 482 Application bearing No.9054 of 2006, in which a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court had granted stay on the trial and that stay continued upto 06.04.2019, when another co-ordinate Bench of this High Court giving reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Criminal Appeal No.1375-1376 of 2013; Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, not only vacated the stay, as proceedings were held up before the trial court but thereafter applicant did not appear before the trial court as a result of which, Non-bailable Warrant was issued against the applicant and, thereafter, proceedings were drawn under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that 482 Application seeking quashing of the charge sheet was dismissed on its own merits vide order dated 20.11.2019, and now applicant after exhausting all the alternate remedy and having failed to get the chargeshet quashed, has approached this Court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that all these aspects have been considered by the trial court and it has also come on record that applicant was aware of all the proceedings which were taking place in the High Court, but deliberately without approaching the trial court was absconding, and now has filed this anticipatory bail application after rejection of similar application in the hands of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the allegation in the FIR is that, age of the victim at the time of the incident was about 17 years. It is not the case of the applicant that victim is an illiterate person, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice Act, and the Rules framed thereafter the applicant is required to prove that victim was not below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident so to prove his innocence. Medical Certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Meerut on 21.11.2002 will be of no or less importance in view of the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules.
6. Thus, in view of such facts, it is matter of trial that whether the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were made out on the date, on which the girl was abducted or not. Therefore, merely on the ground that they have not entered into a wedlock, no indulgence can be shown especially when applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the High Court and thereafter, applicant has approached the High Court to seek anticipatory bail.
7. In my opinion, the requirements of Section 438 for grant of anticipatory bail and ones, which have been enumerated in case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab; (1980) 2 SCC 565, are not made out. Looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation and also the conduct of the applicant, who has been keeping himself away from the trial despite the fact that his Application under Section 482 seeking quashing of the FIR/charge-sheet has been dismissed, the present Application for grant of Anticipatory Bail fails and is dismissed.
8. Sri Shah, counsel for the applicant, at this stage submits that applicant be granted some time to appear before the trial court and proceedings drawn under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. be stayed against him. This prayer of the applicant deserves to be discarded and is rejected, inasmuch as, it is not the scope of a application filed for seeking anticipatory bail to interfere in proceedings initiated by the trial court under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. for that remedy lies elsewhere, therefore, prayer being not genuine and germane to the present application, is rejected.
Order Date :- 16.6.2021/Ashutosh
