Allahabad High Court
Ankur @ Pavan Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191578
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10696 of 2023
Applicant :- Ankur @ Pavan Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Agrawal,Harsh Vardhan Deshwar
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case No. 07 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D & 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Raya, District - Mathura.
3. In short, the prosecution story as per impugned FIR is that on 15.01.2023 at about 4.00 pm, the accused persons, namely, Vishnu, Jai, Mohit and Ankur has enticsed away the niece of informant namely, Soniya aged about 15 years.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. After recovery, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded after 11 days of the alleged incident in which she has not supported the prosecution story and stated herself aged about 18 years. He further submits that the victim has stated in her statement that she went with the co-accused Vishnu with her own sweet will and has solemnized marriage with him and living together as husband and wife. He further submits that the victim has refused for her medical examination. During investigation, the investigating officer has found no evidence against the applicants, hence, submitted final report but after two months of submission of final report, the uncle of the victim has filed complaint and after recording statement under Sections 200 and 202 cr.p.c., the court below in a routine manner summoned the applicants. He further submit that the applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 33 of the affidavit and have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail,they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. On the other hand, Shri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants and has submitted that the complainant in his statement has clearly stated that the applicants and other co-accused persons have enticed away her niece. The allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegation, the court below has rightly summoned the applicants.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Ankur @ Pawan Kumar and Mohit, involved in the aforesaid complaint case be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(ii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.
(v) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vi) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
A. Prajapati
