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

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11925 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Sunita And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijeta Kushwaha,Mahendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Ms. Vijeta Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, 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 applicants in Case Crime No.139 of 2022, registered under Sections 363, 120-B, 365 I.P.C. at Police Station-Rohta, District-Meerut with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicants, who happen to be neighbours of the informant, are stated to have called the minor daughter of the informant to their house, whereby facilitated her in eloping with co-accused person Sonu on 17.8.2022 at about 01:00 p.m.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR is delayed by about twelve days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim was a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she had gone with co-accused Sonu all the way from Meerut to Bulandshahr on motorcycle and did not raise any alarm whatsoever. She has further stated that she was seated in bus for Meerut from Bulandshahr by co-accused Sonu and she had reached her house as such. Even the victim has not allayed any allegations of rape against the co-accused person Sonu, although she has stated that he had kept her captive for one day in a room.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicants have been implicated in this case owing to their enmity as they are neighbours. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit. The victim is stated to be 16 years old but no allegations have been made against the applicants under the provisions of POCSO Act. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicants undertake that they have co-operated in the investigation and are 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 applicants.

¶8On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, and taking into consideration that there is no direct role of the applicants except for facilitating the victim to elope with co-accused person Sonu, the applicants are 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 applicants 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 applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants-Smt. Sunita and Manisha be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

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

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

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

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

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

(vi). that the applicants 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 below 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 :- 1.11.2023 Vikas [Krishan Pahal, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad