Runku Alias Ankita And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3064 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4919 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Runku Alias Ankita And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Runku Alias Ankita, Boby and Devi Shah in Case Crime No.- 65 of 2021, under Section- 363,366 IPC, Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura.

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.

There is allegation against the applicant no.2, Boby, that he has enticed away the minor daughter applicant no.1 Runku alias Ankita of the informant.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the girl,applicant no.1 has married the applicant no.2 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Firozabad.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants.He has submitted that in view of seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record.Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that applicant no.2 Boby will produce the applicant no.1.Runku Alias Ankita, before the C.J.M., Mathura, within a period of three weeks. The C.J.M. will record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicants shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for the period of three weeks initially on compliance of this order it shall be extended. On failure to comply this order, anticipatory bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled and the police shall be free to arrest the applicant.

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail for the period of three weeks initially and after compliance of above condition till cognizance is taken on police report by the court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

(ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

The applicants is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

In case the victim is found major, she would be free to live with the applicant, in case she is found to be minor then as per the judgment dated 27.01.2021 of this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 4804 of 2020 (Pradeep Tomar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another), it shall be open for the daughter of the informant to acknowledge the marriage or claim it to be void once she attains the age of majority. It would be open for her to go wherever she likes and stay with the applicant or with whomsoever she wants to live after she attains the age of majority. However, if she is found to be minor she will not be allowed to live with applicant and will live with her parents. In case, if ay threat to her security from her parents during her minority the C.J.M., Mathura will pass appropriate order after ascertaining the correct facts.

In case the victim is found major and in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.c. expresses her willingness to live with the applicant no.2 then in case of their arrest the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

1. The applicants shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

2. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

3. That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

4. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

5. In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case ofSushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

6. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

8. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 1.3.2021

Atul kr. sri.