Allahabad High Court
Santosh vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172955
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9742 of 2023
Applicant :- Santosh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.760 of 2007, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, Police Station- Haldharpur, District- Mau.
3. As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged on 09.09.2007 by the complainant stating therein that her daughter namely, Sunita Chauhan went somewhere from house on 17.08.2007, the complainant searched her but she could not found and after great persuasion, it came in the knowledge that she has been taken away by the applicant and other co-accused Moti Ram and Dharmendra.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. He submitted that the victim has performed marriage with Dharmendra. He submitted that after unfortunate death of Dharmendra (husband of the victim) on 29.4.2021, she left the house of her husband and ran away with some other person. He submitted that the applicant came to know through news paper that the police has started the proceedings of attachment but till date no proceedings of attachment has been initiated. He submitted the applicant has no criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that there is a serious allegation against the applicant of abducting the daughter of the complainant aged about 16 years and the proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Lavlesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 730, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
6. After having very carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.
7. Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Applicant is advised to move regular bail application before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023
Krishna*
