Allahabad High Court
Rajkumari And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190339
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10798 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajkumari And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Kumar, 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 applicants in Case No.3033 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 812 of 2017, registered under Section 316Ka I.P.C. at Police Station- Saurikh, District- Kannauj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith one Monu are stated to have assaulted the minor daughter of the informant on 17.9.2017 when she had gone to ease herself out, thereby causing injuries to her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that initially an NCR was instituted against the applicants out of vengeance and later on during investigation Section 316-A I.P.C. has been added. Learned counsel has stated that there is no section as 316-A in the Indian Penal Code and the same averments stand falsified. Learned counsel has further stated that earlier on an FIR regarding the rape having been committed upon the victim by the son of the applicant no.1 was instituted and the present case is off-shoot of the said FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that the co-accused person Anil has been acquitted in the said Special Session Trial No.88 of 2017 vide order dated 5.7.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj. Even the postmortem report of the fetus indicates no injury whatsoever. Even the victim in her statement recorded in the criminal trial has admitted the fact of medical termination of pregnancy. The applicants are ladies and have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit.
7. 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 has stated that the applicants undertake 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- Rajkumari and Shobha @ Suman 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 below 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.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023
Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
