Allahabad High Court
Maria vs State Of U.P. on 16 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. - 12867 of 2022
Applicant :- Maria
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pragya Pandey,Mehul Khare
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amrit Shankar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Kulveer Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial No.615 of 2021 (State vs. Durgesh alias Durga) arising out of Case Crime No.389 of 2020, under Sections 328, 376/120B I.P.C., Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Durgesh is said to have met the victim at Goverdhan crossing and is stated to have lured her to Mumbai on the pretext that she shall be accorded a role in films as he was a driver of one of the leading directors of the film industry. Later on, he is stated to have taken her to the house of the applicant at Mumbai, wherein the applicant is stated to have spiked her drink rendering her unconscious and the husband of the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have sexually assaulted her at different occasions. Some indecent photographs and videos are said to have been made of the said act and the co-accused persons are said to have continuously committed rape with her on the pretext that the said photographs and videos shall be made viral on social media.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is a housewife and has nothing to do with the said offence. Her husband Kutubuddin has already been enlarged on regular bail against whom the allegations of rape are alleged. Learned counsel has further stated that the main accused Durgesh has also been enlarged on regular bail by the court concerned and he co-accused person Sukhdev has been granted anticipatory protection. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant being a lady and having no criminal antecedents to her credit is entitled for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.4645 of 2022 (Manish Yadav vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 14.7.2022, wherein the anticipatory bail was granted to the delinquent inspite of the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against him.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant is not cooperating with trial as she has been summoned by the court concerned by invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and there is ample evidence as the said order is a detailed order. Learned counsel has further stated that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been passed vide order dated 16.8.2022 of the trial court and the applicant is not appearing therein.
Learned counsel for the informant has further placed much reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in n case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730. Learned counsel has further placed much reliance on the judgments of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9023 of 2022 vide order dated 15.11.2022 and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.20357 of 2021 vide order dated 06.04.2022, wherein it has been opined that if any proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been passed against the delinquent, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has further stated that the facts of the judgment passed in Manish Yadav (supra) does not apply to the case of the applicant.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the fact that already the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. with respect to the applicant are complete and she is not cooperating with the trial and in light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Lavesh (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the applicant at bar pertain to regular bail application. They cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
Ravi Kant
