Bablu v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11771 of 2023 Applicant :- Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth,Shyam Sunder Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shakil Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 340 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354, 323 of IPC, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant in the night of 04.12.2022 at about 11:00 PM and is stated to have outraged the modesty of his minor daughter aged about 17 years and even assaulted her.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case owing to animosity and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that initially, the FIR was instituted u/s 452, 354, 323 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act but later on, it was found that the age of the victim was 21 years. The final report (charge-sheet) has been filed u/s 452, 354, 323 of IPC only, the provisions of Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act stand deleted. Learned counsel has further stated that the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has inflated the allegations by alleging that the applicant had committed rape with her. Learned counsel has stated that there is no possibility of rape as all the family members reside there.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the informant and other family members have stated that they had got the said statement recorded regarding rape with her after legal consultation. 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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98" and also considering the contradictions in the FIR to the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., I find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶9Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant, Bablu involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- 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 previous permission of the court; iv. that 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;

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 28.10.2023 Siddhant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad