Anil Kumar Shukla Alias Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11410 of 2023 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Shukla Alias Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avinash Kumar Sharma,Ekta Kaur Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Ekta Kaur and Sri Avinash Kumar Sharma, advocates on behalf of opposite party no.4 is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 and perused the record.

¶3Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.182 of 2022, under Sections 376, 511, 323, 504, 506, 363, 366 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj, the applicant - Anil Kumar Shukla Alias Ajay Kumar has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶4An F.I.R. was lodged on 29.6.2022 alleging therein that the named accused Anubhav Mishra enticed away the minor daughter of the informant. After registration of the F.I.R., investigation commenced, which is still going on.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Even in the F.I.R., main allegation is against the main accused Anubhav Mishra. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has not even named the applicant and in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the allegation of attempt to rape has been alleged, but overall analysis of both the statements goes to show that she was entangled with main accused Anubhav Mishra and had gone with him on her own free will and consent and made physical relations with him and present applicant has no role in commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that as per medical report, she was very well major at the time of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently submitted that during the course of investigation, evidence has been collected to the effect that the applicant used to visit the victim several times and made attempts to rape with her. The victim of this case is a minor girl and the offence committed by the applicant is serious in nature and as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶7In the present matter, the main allegation of rape / kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant with intention to perform marriage with her without her consent and will has been alleged against the main accused Anubhav Mishra. The applicant has been cooperative so far with the investigation of the case.

¶8In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶9In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶10Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶11The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶12In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(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 S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶13In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad