Allahabad High Court
Chaman Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home ... on 24 July, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49182
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 583 of 2023
Applicant :- Chaman Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Sanjeet Kumar Patel,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
On 02.03.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -
"Learned counsel for applicant submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application, first anticipatory bail application was allowed till filing of police report.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.34/2022, under Sections 376, 370, 323, 504, 506, 328, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4/5 Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), P.S. Aminabad, District Lucknow.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution story the brother of applicant, co-accused Manish Pratap Singh, was known to informant and used to visit her house. Complainant's daughter who is 35 years old and without intimation to the informant, the co-accused Manish Pratap Singh having talking terms with the daughter of the informant and in the month of October, 2021 on the pretext of providing job enticed her daughter away and called her at his house in Aminabad 4-5 times and there on the pretext of providing job, he molested her twice. It is further alleged that upon objection being raised by her daughter, the associate of co-accused Sandhya @ Shyama used to beat her and threaten her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that her daughter has seen other girls who were kept by Manish Pratap Singh along with her and was indulged in illegal acts. Learned counsel for applicant submits that main accused Manish Pratap Singh had filed a discharge application before the learned trial court that was allowed vide order dated 23.12.2022. On the alleged date of incident i.e. October, 2021, he was confined in judicial custody. No specific date of incident has been mentioned in the F.I.R., only month of October has been alleged in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, the learned trial court after finding that during the alleged period in which the offence was committed with the daughter of the informant, the main accused Manish Pratap Singh was actually confined in jail thus, the entire prosecution story was found false and on this ground he has been discharged. It is further submitted that prosecutrix Neelu has refused to undergo the medical examination. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the discharge order, it has been further observed by the learned trial court that no scientific investigation or material has been collected by the Investigating Officer for offence under Section 328 I.P.C. Applicant has explained the criminal history of two other cases. Applicant is not previous convict, he submits that a perusal of the discharge order will show that the entire prosecution story in the F.I.R. as well as statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix has been found false. The other two named accused persons namely, Amit Sisaudiaya and Sandhya @ Shyama have been enlarged on regular bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 06.02.2023 & 27.02.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.13094 of 2022 & 2937 of 2023 respectively. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed, applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 10.04.2023.
On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record and the order of discharge dated 23.12.2022 which is on record in support of the main accused Manish Pratap Singh and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the refusal of the prosecutrix to undergo the medical examination, applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.
(2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court."
Although counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed, nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 02.03.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)
Order Date :- 24.7.2023/A.Nigam
