Allahabad High Court
Ram Babu Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116154
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5993 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Babu Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Archna Singh Jadaun
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Durvijay Singh, Advocate holding brief of Ms.Archna Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Kesharwani, 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 Case Crime No.20 of 2021, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 313, 377 and 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station- Chandaus, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the informant as per Hindu Rites on 20.01.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakhs and a Scorpio car, thereby are stated to have assaulted her on 22.11.2020 at about 12:00 PM leading to the termination of her pregnancy.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the informant and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical evidence to corroborate the prosecution story of rape. The allegations have been inflated and the colour has been added to the prosecution story after legal consultation. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Ram Babu Sharma be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal 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.
9. 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 :- 24.5.2023/Ravi Kant
