Chandra Shekhar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9980 of 2023 Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Tarun Jha,Aastha Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶2This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant - Chandra Shekhar in connection with Complaint Case No.06 of 2022 (Smt. Sushila Vs. Sher Singh and others) under Sections 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun.

¶3Alleging sexual assault and outraging the modesty of the minor victim, a criminal complaint was filed by the mother of the victim against five named accused persons, who were summoned to face trial by the Special Judge, POCSO Act under Sections 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the whole complaint story is false and fabricated. The present applicant and the complainant side had a property dispute regarding a wall prior to the present incident. The wife of co-accused Sher Singh has also lodged F.I.R. against the complainant side wherein trial is going on and the evidence has been concluded. It is further submitted that no process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant so far. He has not been declared as a proclaimed offender. Offences levelled against the applicant are punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial court. Criminal history of the applicant has been satisfactorily explained.

¶5Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that sexual assault has been committed with the minor daughter of the complainant and the victim herself as well as witnesses of the case have corroborated the complaint story in their statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and there is no chance of false implication of the applicant and in these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6In the present matter, offences levelled against the applicant are punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. Applicant is said to be willing and ready to cooperate with the trial court. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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.

¶8Hence, 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, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶9The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶11In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad