Allahabad High Court
Anil Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94329
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5280 of 2024
Applicant :- Anil Maurya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy,Vinod Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, 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.0092 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lalpur/Pandeypur, District Varanasi.
3. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the victim herself on 09.03.2021 with the allegation that she is a student of law final year. She belongs to a poor family. She came in contact with the applicant through Facebook and, thereafter, she met with him. The applicant joined her a Network Marketing Company namely "Vestige" and with the greed of money used to talk regularly and slowly mesmerize her in his love and, thereafter, with the assurance of marriage and after taking her in confidence of love, made physical relationship and also prepared a video when she stopped the applicant then he threatened to viral the video. It is further alleged that the applicant with fraud and false assurance of marriage made physical relationship with her and when victim is ready to get the marriage with full confidence, he made physical relation forcefully several time and now he cut off all the contact with her. It is further alleged that after inquiring his village she reached his village where she met his brother Anoop Maurya, who misbehaved with her and told that his brother is already married, the applicant escaped away from the house. He used abusive language and threatened her with dire consequences.
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 applicant is a married person having two child aged about 14 years and 11 years respectively. He further submits that the applicant and the victim are working in a network marketing company, namely, Vestige. The wife of the applicant was suffering from cancer and the victim, being familiar to the applicant, has provided facility to the patient in the hospital. During treatment, seeing the condition of the wife of the applicant, the victim herself made physical relation with the applicant, therefore, no question arise for false promise of marriage. He further submits that victim is habitual in lodging the FIR. Earlier the victim has lodged an FIR against Mukesh Maurya, Nandlal Maurya, Ramesh Maurya and 4 unknown person under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC in which her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has stated that she married with one Kamlesh Maurya on 29.05.2016, thereafter, she fell in love with one Mukesh Maurya. Charge sheet has been submitted against Mukesh Maurya, Nandlal Maurya, Ramesh Maurya but during trial, the victim has turned hostile. He further submits that earlier the applicant has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.10197 of 2021 and this Court vide order dated 10.08.2021 has granted interim relief in favour of the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., copy of order has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit. Now the investigating officer, in a routine manner, without collecting any cogent evidence, has charge sheet against the applicant and the court below has also taken cognizance in the same manner without applying its judicial mind. He further submits that during investigation, the applicant has fully cooperated in investigation and has never misused the liberty of bail, hence, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, therefore the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 55 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest 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-Anil Maurya, 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 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 applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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 :- 24.5.2024
Ajeet
