Yogendra Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12510 of 2023 Applicant :- Yogendra Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Parmeshwar Yadav,Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶2The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 397 of 2023, under Sections 354(A), 376, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Nebua, Naurangiya, District Kushi Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶3As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that her modesty was outraged by the applicant by barging into her house in the night of 24.9.2023 at about 10.30 pm.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. It is further stated that the victim is a married lady aged about 35 years having seven children and that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that subsequent to it, after legal consultation, the allegations have been escalated of rape against the applicant. It is next stated that the FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of the victim has kept on changing one after the other, as she had added in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that the applicant was in an inebriated state. It is also stated that no injury has been found on any part of the body of the victim during her medical examination, and she has refused to get her internal examination conducted. Learned counsel has next stated that the police carried animosity towards the applicant and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶5Several 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 a criminal history of four cases out of which, two cases have been instituted by the same informant, while in two other cases, the applicant is on bail. He is not a previous convict. The criminal history has been explained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit accompanying the application. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶6On 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.

¶7On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and 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", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶8Without 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.

¶9In the event of arrest of the applicant, Yogendra Gupta 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;

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶11It 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 :- 16.11.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad