Allahabad High Court
Shyam Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160046
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5935 of 2023
Applicant :- Shyam Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogesh Kumar Vaish
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Awasthi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.70 of 2023, registered under Sections 376(2)(i), 313, 120-B IPC and Section 5J(ii), 51, 5m and 6 of POCSO Act at Police Station- Kadaura, District Jalaun with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the mother of the victim/informant herein is stated to have entered into illicit relationship with some person in the village. Subsequent to it, the said person Brijesh Kumar is stated to have induced her to enter into corporeal relationship with the applicant in the year 2022. There are money transactions between the co-accused person and the mother of the informant and the property has been transferred amongst them. Subsequent to it, the marriage of the victim was solemnized in mass marriage drive with the co-accused person Brijesh Kumar. In between the two incidents, the victim has been forced to terminate her pregnancy twice.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to his relationship with the main accused person Brijesh Kumar. It is purely a property dispute. The mother of the informant herein had come to this Court and filed a petition under habeas corpus, which was later on withdrawn. Learned counsel has further stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant has committed any offence. There is no evidence regarding medical termination of pregnancy of the informant. The victim, as per her own version and school certificate, is major. Her date of birth is 01.07.2003, although she has stated in the FIR that her actual date of birth is 15.10.2004.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said statement has been made to make the case fall under the provisions of POCSO Act. 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. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. 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.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
9. 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.
10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Shyam 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
11. 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 :- 9.8.2023
Ravi Kant
