Allahabad High Court
Sooraj Singh Solanki vs State Of U.P. on 11 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235452
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13021 of 2023
Applicant :- Sooraj Singh Solanki
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Virpratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Sooraj Singh Solanki in Case Crime No.642 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
3. The lady victim of this case having two kids had some dispute with her husband and subsequently she developed some relations with the present applicant, who also took Rs.3 lakh and physically exploited her on the false pretext of marriage, but subsequently when she became pregnant, he denied to marry with her. F.I.R. was lodged on 11.9.2020 and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the victim is a major and married lady. She was having some friendly and intimate relations with the applicant by her own free will and consent. It is further submitted that there is no detail in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as to when and in what manner Rs.3 lakh were taken by the applicant from the victim of this case. It is further submitted that so far as the termination of pregnancy is concerned, the victim herself refused to be medically examined and there is no medical report on record. Applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. He has been cooperative throughout during investigation of the case. No custodial interrogation is required in this matter and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute this factual aspect that there is no documentary evidence regarding the payment of Rs.3 lakh in favour of the applicant by the victim herself. No criminal history of the applicant has been brought to the notice of this Court.
6. Although charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
8. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.
9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;
(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
11. In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 11.12.2023
ss
