Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Soni And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5786 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Soni And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Raghib Ali,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No. 0160 of 2022, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Karchhna, District- Prayagraj.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 22.06.2022.
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 vs. State of UP), hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (UP Amendment) is not required.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee from the course of justice.
Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgments in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, [(2014) 8 SCC 273]; Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP & others [(1994) 4 SCC 260] and Sanaul Haque vs. State of UP & another [2008 CrLJ 1998], to buttress his contentions.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that F.I.R under Section 376 and 506 I.P.C was lodged by the complainant against Pankaj Soni, his father and his two uncles. Learned counsel submitted that perusal of the F.I.R shows that there is no allegation of rape against the present applicants. Allegation of rape is made only and only against the co-accused Pankaj Soni, there is allegaton of criminal intimidation against the applicants that too without causing any injury.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents, but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned AGA has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, perusal of F.I.R. shows that allegation of rape is made against co-accused Pankaj Soni. It is further averred F.I.R. that when the complainant went to the house of Pankaj Soni, his father and two uncles intimated her for life. No other allegation is made against the present applicant.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways, which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicants-Rajesh Kumar Soni, Raju Soni and Lakshmi Chandra in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer /court below concerned with the following condition that :-
(i) the applicants shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicants to remain available to him for the purpose of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.
(ii) the applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.
(iii) the Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period, the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.
(iv) in the event, the applicants are having their passport, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
In the event, the applicants breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or willfully violate above conditions or abstains themselves from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of session for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants and the court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.
Order Date :- 22.7.2022
PS
