Atul Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12340 of 2023 Applicant :- Atul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Yadav,Manish Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶3Heard Sri Shobhit Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶4The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.230 of 2023, registered under Sections 366, 376, 354, 342 and 120-B IPC at Police Station-Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶5As per prosecution story, the applicant and other named accused persons are stated to have abducted the informant on

13.02.2023 and are stated to have forcibly married her of to Ramanand, who had sexually assaulted her. After much persuasion, on 07.03.2023, the said co-accused person Ramanand is stated to have left her at about 10:00 a.m. near Annpurna Mandir.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence of applicant abducting the informant. The main accused person, against whom the allegations of sexual assault are levelled, is Ramanand, who has been enlarged on regular bail by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39903 of 2023 vide order dated 13.09.2023. Learned counsel has further stated that the case of the applicant is at a better footing to the co-accused person who has been enlarged on bail.

¶6Several 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 is not a previous convict. The another case, pending against him, is Case Crime No.383 of 2021, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, which fall below seven years, as such the applicant has complied with the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and is entitled for anticipatory bail. He is not a previous convict. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is 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 applicant.

¶8On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is 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 applicant 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 applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Atul Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(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 the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned 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 :- 23.11.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad