Allahabad High Court
Jayveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 December, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238375
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13549 of 2023
Applicant :- Jayveer Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shakil Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Session Trial No.172 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.159 of 2018, registered under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act at Police Station- Khudaganj, District- Shahjahanpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons is stated to have abducted the minor daughter of the informant on 17.5.2018 at about 08:00 p.m. and despite of her raising alarm, they did not heed to her request and fled away with her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR is delayed by about more than nineteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has categorically stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet-will and married him at Pilibhit. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is 20 years of age as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant.
6. 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 applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that 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.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Jayveer Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond 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.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 16.12.2023/Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
