Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Arun @ Rajeev Kumar Arun vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 1 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50744
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 501 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajeev Arun @ Rajeev Kumar Arun
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. On 27.02.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 0513 of 2021, under Sections 306 I.P.C. Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused and main accused Smt. Neetu Singh has been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 8.2.2023 passed by Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.217 of 2023. The order dated 8.2.2023 is on record and is extracted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 513/2021, under Sections 306 I.P.C., P.S. Mallawan, District Hardoi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady and have to cater her two children and after her arrest they will be left destitute.
It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant who is widow of the elder son of the informant was having an affair with one Rajeev Arun and when the younger son of the informant tried to stop her, she falsely implicated them in a case and thereafter the applicant and the co-accused Rajeev Arun has given applications and have harassed them mentally and socially. It has been further alleged that the applicant and Rajeev Arun have threatened the deceased to kill with licensee pistol and also extended threats to implicate them in Harijan Act, due to this, the younger son of the informant has committed suicide.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. to constitute abetment are missing. It may be an act of harassment by the applicant but if someone who is over sensitive and takes extreme steps and ends his life, she cannot be said to have abeted the deceased in committing suicide. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in "Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan", reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4764. Emphasis is on para 23.
It is further submitted that the applicant being a widow lady and a major, after the death of her husband in 2015 is entitled to have relationship to who so ever she wants and that cannot be a cause for committing suicide for any of the family members of the deceased husband.
Issue notice to respondent no. 2.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application submitting that in the suicide note, it is written that the only two people are responsible for the death of the deceased i.e. applicant and the co-accused Rajeev Arun. Suicide note is of 06.10.2021 and it is in the writing of the deceased which has been affirmed by the FSL report.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 21.03.2023.
Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that the applicant is a lady having two children; she has no criminal antecedents; she has cooperated in the investigation and the she further undertaks to cooperate in the trial as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and she will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that against the applicant also the ingredient of Section 107 I.P.C. read with Section 306 I.P.C. are missing. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial. Charge sheet has been filed in this case.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed fifteen days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 05.04.2023.
On due consideration to the judgement of 'Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan' (supra); charge-sheet has been filed; undertaking that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail."
2. Although counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has already furnished the bail bonds.
4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 27.02.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 1.8.2023
Pradeep/-
