Allahabad High Court
Rajwardhan Singh Gautam @ Rajan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61439
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1703 of 2025
Applicant :- Rajwardhan Singh Gautam @ Rajan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Learned A.G.A. submits that notice of the instant application has been served upon the opposite party no.2/informant and opposite party no.3 on 21.02.2025. The receiving endorsements produced by learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.
2. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Special Session Trial No.667 of 2024, Case Crime No.366 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. read with Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, during the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. On the same day of lodging of the first information report by the informant, a first information report was also lodged by the father of the applicant against the husband and brothers-in-law (devar) of the informant, registered as Case Crime No.0367 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(?) and 3(1)(?) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Naini, District Prayagraj. It is contended that no such incident had occurred. The applicant did not act indecently with the daughter of the informant. Further, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties filed an application before the Investigating Officer that no such incident had occurred and the parties did not want to pursue the matter any longer. Investigation has been completed. The applicant had co-operated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and he has been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for the applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.
8. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.
9. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, and the fact that on the same day of lodging of the first information report by the informant, a first information report was also lodged by the father of the applicant against the husband and brothers-in-law (devar) of the informant. During the pendency of investigation, both the parties filed an application before the Investigating Officer that no such incident had occurred and the parties did not want to pursue the matter any longer. Investigation has been completed, the applicant had co-operated in the investigation, the applicant has been summoned by the concerned court and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
12. In the event of arrest, the applicant Rajwardhan Singh Gautam @ Rajan, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;
(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.
13. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
14. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.4.2025
Manish Kr
