Allahabad High Court
Shane Alam vs State Of U.P. on 25 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116478
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5579 of 2023
Applicant :- Shane Alam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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.504 of 2021, registered under Sections 376, 452, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Najibabad, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant as he wanted to forcibly marry her and the informant had categorically denied to marry him. On 30.08.2021, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with her and also injured her.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by nineteen days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the injury report does not indicate any external mark on her body. The injury report is categorically silent about any indications of sexual assault also. It is admitted fact that the applicant and the informant are neighbours and it was settled between the parties to marry each other but both the parties later on had fallen apart.
6. To buttress his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed much reliance on the application filed by the brother of the informant before the S.H.O., P.S. Nagal, District Bijnor, whereby he has levelled allegations of demand of dowry against the applicant and he has also stated that he had given an amount of Rs.51,000/- and ornaments worth Rs.1,18,000/- as gift in lieu of the said marriage agreed upon between the parties. The demand of dowry made by the applicant is stated to be of a Scorpio car. The said application was filed by the brother of the informant on 23.08.2021 and subsequently the present FIR has been instituted on 19.09.2021 showing an incident of 30.08.2021. The difference in the two incident is about one month.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer was pleased to file a final report (charge-sheet) under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. only, but pursuant to an application filed by the informant as protest before the Magistrate concerned, the cognizance has been taken in added Sections of 376 and 452 I.P.C. as well. The applicant had challenged the said cognizance order by filing a petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.10621 of 2021 before this Court. The matter was sent for mediation but the mediation proceedings have failed and the petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is still pending, but the interim order stands vacated in the light of the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299. 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 for no fault of his. 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.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant has agitated the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has failed in it. Learned counsel for the informant has further placed much reliance on paragraph 43(8) of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another, although he has fairly admitted the fact that it was the matter of discord between the family pertaining to the marriage which was to be solemnized between them, but the offence against the applicant is made out.
9. Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A., taking into consideration the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam (supra) and considering the fact that the applicant has not failed yet and the petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is still pending although the mediation proceedings have failed, thus the judgment of Shivam (supra) does not apply to the present case and seeing the present scenario and also the fact that the final report was submitted under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. only, 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.
11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Shane Alam 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.
12. 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 :- 25.5.2023
Ravi Kant
