Allahabad High Court
Asgar Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 6 June, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34905
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 652 of 2025
Applicant :- Asgar Ali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pathak,Saurabh Samir,Sheo Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in case crime/FIR No. 302/2022, under Sections 354/506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Murtiha, District Bahraich.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of learned AGA, notice to the complainant is served.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken by the competent court. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending the applicant behind the bars. The applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation and undertakes to extend the same cooperation during the course of trial. It is also submitted that the victim declined to undergo medical examination. The applicant has been falsely implicated. There are material contradictions in the victim?s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A., while opposing the bail application, has not disputed the fact that the applicant has no prior criminal history.
On due consideration to the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the refusal of the victim to undergo medical examination, the filing of the charge sheet as well as considering the fact that the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, I am of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail, in light of the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his continued cooperation during the trial.
In view of the above, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court within twenty days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, 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 tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 6.6.2025
R.C.
