Allahabad High Court
Aneesh Ahmad Shah vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 33
Case :- BAIL No. - 2244 of 2020
Applicant :- Aneesh Ahmad Shah
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Alok Kumar Mishra,Vivek Kumar Divedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
The instant application has been filed for bail of Aneesh Ahmad Shah, involved in Case Crime No.394 of 2019, under Sections 344, 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and under section 5(J) (2)/6 POCSO Act, 2012 and under section 3 (2) (5), 3(2) 5A SC/ST Act, Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
No one is present for opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that FIR was lodged after four months of the occurrence without any proper explanation. Learned counsel further submits that victim was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has not stated anything regarding sexual assault committed by the applicant with her. Learned counsel further submits that in the medico-legal examination, no internal or external injury was found on the person of the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is a law abiding person, languishing in jail since 21.12.2019. Learned counsel further submits that if the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned AGA further submits that applicant was also involved in case crime no.699 of 2015 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC., Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Hardoi. Learned counsel further submits that in view of gravity of offence, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the aforesaid case, applicant was falsely involved due to property dispute wherein he has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.5.2016 passed in Bail Application No.11669 of 2015.
As per FIR on 15.06.2019, when the informant (father of the victim) had gone in his relation, the victim, aged about 14-15 years was sleeping with his mother in the night and when her mother awoke in the morning, the victim was not with her. FIR was lodged after four months i.e. on 06.10.2019 with allegation that victim was enticed away by the applicant and she was sexually assaulted by the applicant. During investigation, in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim had not made any specific allegation of sexual assault against the applicant.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, material available on record regarding role of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed.
The application for bail is allowed.
Let the applicant Aneesh Ahmad Shah involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
i. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii. The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.
iv. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
v. 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 CrPC (iv) argument / judgment.
vi. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.3.2021
P.s.
