Allahabad High Court
Anoop Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5726 of 2021
Applicant :- Anoop Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Anoop Singh, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 157 of 2018, under Section- 363 I.P.C., Police Station- Marhara, District- Etah, during pendency of trial.
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.
The allegation against the applicant is that he has enticed away the minor daughter of informant aged about 16 years. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she has left her house on her own and went with the applicant to Sonipat. She started working with the applicant in a factory. They have entered into marriage at Ghaziabad court. Earlier, they also married in Arya Samaj Temple. She has given birth to twin male children on 18.09.2020. She wants to live with her husband. She has apprehension from her parents and other family members. From the High School marksheet of the victim, her date of birth is 06.07.2002. On the date of lodging of the F.I.R i.e. 02.08.2018, the victim was clearly minor but she has become major.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. 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 will produce the girl, Nisha Joshi, before the C.J.M., concerned, within a period of two weeks. He will verify her earlier statement dated 24.11.2020 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for the period of two weeks initially and 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 case the earlier statement of the victim dated 24.11.2020 recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is found to be correct and she does not disputes the same, 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. Since she has attained 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. In case, if any threat to her security is caused from her parents, C.J.M., Etah, will pass appropriate order after ascertaining the correct facts.
In case of his arrest, let the applicant 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 applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. That the applicant 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. The applicant 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 his bail and proceed against him 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 :- 4.3.2021/KS
