Allahabad High Court
Thakur Prasad Alias Raju Bhartiya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86592
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4822 of 2024
Applicant :- Thakur Prasad Alias Raju Bhartiya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant 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 Case Crime No.0043 of 2024, under Sections 341, 354, 504, 506, 376 (D) IPC, Police Station Sarain Inayat, Ganga Nagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh.
3. In short, the prosecution story is that the victim/informant has lodged the impugned FIR stating therein that on the way while she was going to college, the applicant stopped and caught her hand and started abusing her and said that if you do not marry, he will shoot you.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the month of May, 2018 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged in the year 2024 without any explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. The victim herself lodged the impugned FIR under Sections 341, 354, 504 and 506 IPC even in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has not levelled allegation of rape against the applicant but in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that the applicant has committed rape upon her in the month of May, 2018 and applicant has also clicked obscene video. He further submits that the victim/informant was medically examined in the year 2024 in which no internal and external injury found on the body of the victim. As per version of the FIR as well as statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Thakur Prasad Alias Raju Bhartiya, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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 applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant 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 applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant 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.
(vii) The applicant 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 applicant.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.5.2024
Ajeet
