Allahabad High Court
Haseeb vs State Of Up. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home ... on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 391 of 2022
Applicant :- Haseeb
Opposite Party :- State Of Up. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Prachand Pratap Singh,Bhanu Pratap Singhbisen,Neeta Singh Chandel,Rama Shankar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Farooq Ayoob
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Ms. Faraksha Khatoon, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Neeta Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0202 of 2021 registered under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act at Police Station- Mandiyaon, District Lucknow with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused persons are said to have enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 12 years on 13.04.2021 at about 10:30 and taken her away in a Scorpio card.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the prosecution story is false ab initio as the whole family has been falsely implicated in it. Much reliance has been placed on the statement of the victim recorded in court in Sessions Trial No.75 of 2022 by Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow wherein the victim has resiled from her earlier statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and she has not uttered a single word against any of the accused persons including the applicant. The witness has been declared hostile by the public prosecutor and has been cross-examined by him. Even the court was vigilant enough to cross-examine the victim, but nothing material could be taken out from her statement. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there is criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said criminal history has been explained in para 24 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application.
Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the informant has also not disputed the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant and has stated that the matter pertains to political rivalry between the parties and the applicant is not a previous convict.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 656". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant 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 applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Haseeb be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;
5. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
6. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
7. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
8. 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 :- 7.7.2022
Ravi Kant
