Allahabad High Court
Sumit Saxena vs State Of U.P. on 21 September, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182754
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10290 of 2023
Applicant :- Sumit Saxena
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 195 of 2011 (Case No. 5089 of 2018), under Section 366 IPC, Police Station Dhanari, District Budaun (Now District Sambhal), with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
3. As per prosecution story, the named accused persons Pawan and Bagesh are stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant in the night of 22/23.4.2011. The victim is stated to have taken away some ornaments and Rs. 25 thousand alongwith her.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the younger brother of the main accused person Pawan, to whom, the victim is married. The applicant is being maliciously prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is not named in the FIR. Learned counsel has next stated that a bare perusal of the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that she had gone out of her own sweet will and had married Pawan. It is next stated that the applicant has been made an accused owing to his relationship with Pawan. It is also stated that the applicant has filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the Court and was granted interim protection, but owing to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299, the said interim protection has been dispensed with. The petition is still pending.
5. 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. It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of one case, which is under Gambling Act and the same has been explained. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.
8. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sumit Saxena involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
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 previous permission of the court;
iv. that 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;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 21.9.2023
Shalini
