Allahabad High Court
Priyanka vs State Of U.P. on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2283 of 2023
Applicant :- Priyanka Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohitosh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mahitosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.625 of 2022, registered under Sections 384, 376, 328, 120-B IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act at Police Station- Kokhraj, District Kaushambi with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the named accused persons, namely, Ibrahim, Praveen, Reshma and Sahid Ali @ Cheddu, are said to have made indecent video of the informant and are stated to have made it viral on social media. The named accused persons are stated to have extorted the informant in lieu of the said viral video.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations per se levelled in the FIR are stand falsified on the ground that it is stated that the said video has been made viral then how the money can be extorted from the informant for the said video itself as no cause remains there. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant is even absent in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim/informant. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that it was the applicant who had called four persons to her house and then the victim had gone alongwith them in a bolero car and the said video is stated to have been made enroute from Khaga to Ajhuwa.
6. Learned counsel has further stated that even the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. does not assign any over act to the applicant. The said name has been added after legal consultation. The case of the applicant is at a differing footing to the named co-accused persons, namely, Ibrahim, Praveen, Reshma and Sahid Ali @ Cheddu. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR.
8. 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 "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". 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. The case of the applicants stands distinguished to the named four co-accused persons, namely, Ibrahim, Praveen, Reshma and Sahid Ali @ Cheddu.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Priyanka Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Ravi Kant
