Allahabad High Court
Shahrukh Khan @ Ankit Arya And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144341
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6199 of 2023
Applicant :- Shahrukh Khan @ Ankit Arya And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 25.06.2023.
3. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.M. Yadav, 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 applicants in Special Trial No.726 of 2019 in Case Crime No.0058 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 and 120-B IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act at Police Station- Belghat, District Gorakhpur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the co-accused persons, namely, Manoj Kumar and Pramila Devi, are stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 17 years, on 19.03.2019 after about 7:30 AM.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are not named in the FIR. Their names have come up later on in the statement of the victim who has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was introduced by the named accused person Pramila Devi to them. She had gone with applicant no.1 to Mumbai and had entered into corporeal relationship about 10-15 times and he had left her at Fatehpur and her father had retrieved her from there.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that as per ossification test report, the age of the victim was found to be 18 years and as per school certificate, on the date of offence, is 17 years, 7 months and 12 days. The FIR itself is delayed by twelve days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
8. 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 applicants.
9. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants 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 applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants-Shahrukh Khan @ Ankit Arya and Smt. Ankita 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants 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 :- 20.7.2023
Ravi Kant
