Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 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. - 2731 of 2023
Applicant :- Ravi Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abida Syed
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Abida Syed, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and Sri V.K. Gupta, 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.994 of 2020, registered under Sections 363, 342, 376 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act at Police Station- Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, an FIR was instituted by the informant on the suspicion that the named accused Vikky Tiger has enticed away the minor daughter, aged about 17 years, on 25.10.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR itself is delayed by three days and the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up during the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., which also does not indicate towards the applicant having committed any offence as it is categorically stated by the victim that she had gone out of her own sweet will and the applicant had stated that he would get a meeting fixed with her lover Aditya. She remained for twenty days at Siwan, Bihar, but could not meet Aditya and was informed by the applicant that her father was searching her as an FIR has been instituted, thereby she had returned to her parents. Learned counsel has further stated that no case against the applicant is made out. There are no allegations of abduction or rape having committed by the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. 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 his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he 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.
6. 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 applicant.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Ravi Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal 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 himself 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 him 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.
9. 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 :- 27.4.2023/Ravi Kant
