Allahabad High Court
Babita @ Sarita And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12069 of 2022
Applicant :- Babita @ Sarita And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Crime No.1414C of 2003, registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Bablu is stated to have enticed way the minor daughter of the informant on 03.08.2020 between 10-11 am.
Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that applicant nos.1 and 2 are ladies and applicant no.3 is the father of applicant nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel has further stated that after thorough investigation, the police had filed a closure report with respect to the applicants and other three co-accused person and the final report (charge-sheet) was filed against the co-accused person Bablu only. Learned counsel has further stated that they were exonerated by the investigating officer and have been summoned by invoking the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Judge. Learned counsel has further stated in the said trial, the main accused Bablu and two other co-accused person, namely, Govind and Munnu, have been acquitted vide order dated 29.01.2020. The victim, who was examined as PW-3 in the said sessions trial, has completely resiled from her earlier statement and has not supported the prosecution story. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR was lodged after an application being filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant that too after legal consultation. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as it transpires from the statement of the victim recorded in S.T. No.50028 of 2007. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Babita @ Sarita, Dharmwati @ Alka and Shiv Charan be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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 or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
Ravi Kant
