Smt. Pooja v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11506 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Pooja Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Somdev Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Pandey,Kamini Pandey (Dubey) Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard Sri Sachin Malik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as perused the material available on record.

¶2This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in P.S.T. No.1568 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.50 of 2023, under Sections 363, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Basai Mahammdpur, District-Firozabad.

¶3As per FIR, allegation against the applicant is that the applicant along with other co-accused enticed away daughter of the informant aged about 14 years.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a lady and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that alleged incident took place on

7.4.2023 where the victim was recovered on 8.4.2023 and FIR was lodged on 13.4.2023 without any explanation of delay. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per medical report, there is no injury found on the body of the victim and there is no certain opinion of rape as alleged in the FIR. He submitted that there is previous enmity between the parties and only this reason the applicant has been falsely implicated. He submitted that FIR was lodged under Sections 363, 328, 376, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and charge sheet submitted against the applicant under Section 363 & 120-B I.P.C. only. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there are contradiction in the FIR as well as in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 12 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶5Learned counsel for the informant as well as A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶6Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶7In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Smt. Pooja, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(iii) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC

98.

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶8In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶9With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 Krishna* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad