Lokendra @ Lokendra Kumr v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12638 of 2023 Applicant :- Lokendra @ Lokendra Kumr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

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

¶2Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant -Lokendra @ Lokendra Kumr in Case Crime No.22 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Mahila Police Pramarsh Kendra Chandpur, District - Bijnor.

¶3It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant/victim of this case was married with the present applicant on 22.02.2023 and since after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment continuously by her in-laws and she was also made the victim for unnatural sex by her own husband and the injury was also inflicted to the victim by the present applicant as well. F.I.R. was lodged on

25.10.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶4It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5It is further submitted by learned counsel for the accused applicant that it is a case of simple matrimonial dispute and the informant willingly and deliberately left the house of the applicant and went to her own house. It is next submitted that subsequently, a marriage petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also preferred by the present applicant before the family court, Bijnor, which is still pending and subsequent to said proceedings, the present F.I.R. was lodged on false and frivolous ground. It is also submitted that the applicant in this case has been falsely implicated only on account of being her husband. It is further submitted that the accused applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the injured of this case has corroborated the whole prosecution version as alleged in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that it is not a case of matrimonial dispute but the victim/injured has been bitterly assaulted and harassed by her own husband. It is also submitted that being a husband of the injured, the role of the present applicant is most serious.

¶7In the present case, there is no medical report of the injured on record. Prima facie, it appears to be a matrimonial dispute.

¶8In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,

(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, llikelihood 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.

¶9In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶10Considering 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶11The application is allowed.

¶12In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(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 office.

(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.

¶13In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 20.11.2023 Shivangi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad