Santosh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11317 of 2023 Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.313 of 2023, registered under Sections 452, 376, 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station-Khajani, District-Gorakhpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the daughter of the informant about eight days before lodging of the FIR, and subsequently, on 18.8.2023 at about 11:00 a.m. he is stated to have barged into her house and attempted the said offence, thereby on raising of alarm by the daughter of the informant, he is stated to have beaten her and hurled abuses.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR is delayed by two days regarding the offence committed on 18.8.2023 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the victim has not got herself medically examined, as such, the prosecution story does not stand corroborated. Learned counsel has further stated that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has allayed the allegations of rape against the applicant on

18.8.2023 at about 11:00 a.m. which is contradictory to the contents of the FIR. The said statement has been recorded after legal consultation.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is true that the families of the applicant and victim had entered into an altercation over the drain. The allegations have been escalated in the FIR and it has been instituted after delay. The victim is major and aged about 21 years. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶7Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and taking into consideration that there being no medical examination of the victim and she being major and delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶9In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Santosh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

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

(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶10It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 27.10.2023 Vikas [Krishan Pahal, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad