Allahabad High Court
Smt. Silpi @ Anjali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary, ... on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53051
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 82 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Silpi @ Anjali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary, Home Deptt. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap,Shashank Shekhar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
On 13.01.2023, 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 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. 194/2018, under Sections 363/366/376(D)/120-B I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, P.S. Madhaoganj, District Hardoi.
In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that the prosecutrix who is minor has been enticed away by the co-accused Santosh with the help of the applicant and one Madhuri.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has improved the prosecution version and has for the first time taken the name of the applicant alleging that she along with the co-accused persons forcibly enticed her away.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of the independent witnesses Akhilesh Kumar who had stated that he has seen the co-accused Santosh and his mother on the motorcycle. He has not taken the name of the present applicant. Likewise, another witness Laxmi Devi has stated that Santosh came with the prosecutrix after conducting marriage with her and Madhuri was also accompanied with them. Another witness Om Naresh Mishra has taken the name of Madhuri with the co-accused Santosh and he has not taken name of the present applicant.
It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady; she has no criminal history; after F.I.R., the police has conducted the investigation and on the basis of the investigation, final report was filed, upon which, a protest petition was filed by the complainant and only on the basis of the statement of the family members and the prosecutrix, the applicant has been summoned by the trial court and hence, she apprehends the arrest.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 13.02.2023.
Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that the applicant is a lady, the independent witnesses has not taken her name, the prosecutrix also has not taken her name in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even the prosecutrix in her statement before the Court as PW-1 has not assigned any role to the present applicant, so also considering the fact that as per the medical examination, the prosecutrix was major and the applicant is undertaking 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 his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date before the trial court. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court."
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that bail-bonds have already been furnished in compliance of the order dated 13.01.2023.
Although a counter affidavit has been filed, 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.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that the applicant is a 19 years old lady, having no criminal history and there is no allegationof violation of any of the conditions of interim bail by her, the interim order dated 13.01.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)
Order Date :- 8.8.2023
A.Nigam
