Sachin v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10277 of 2023 Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Sachin seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District-Hathras.

¶3The minor daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. FIR was lodged and investigation started, which is going on.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant. It is further submitted that as per High School certificate the date of birth of the victim was 1.6.2005 and she was major on the date of occurrence. It is further submitted that the applicant and the victim have performed marriage with each other and they are living happily with each other. It is further submitted that the victim is in family way as well and the present applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the date of birth mentioned in the High School certificate relating to the victim and the alleged marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, which has been produced by the present applicant. It is further submitted that as per High School certificate itself the victim of the case was minor on the date of occurrence. It is also submitted that earlier Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10291 of 2023 was moved before this Court but no protection was granted to him by this Court vide order dated

31.7.2023. It is further submitted that the victim is living in the custody of the applicant and that is the reason for not recording the statement under Section 161 and 164 of the victim so far.

¶6In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled 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, llikelihood 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.

¶7Hence, considering 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, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶8The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad