Nati @ Lallu v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13013 of 2023 Applicant :- Nati @ Lallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla,Subedar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar,Roopesh Kumar Nigam Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Roopesh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 129 of 2023, under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant in the midnight of 11.10.2023, whereby she was fast asleep. The applicant is stated to have removed the bulb from the holder and, as such, outraged her modesty. On her raising of alarm, the neighbours are stated to have rushed to the place. On 18.10.2023, the brother of the applicant is stated to have even come to her house at 9.00 pm and threatened her.

¶5Learned 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. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR indicates that an FIR was instituted against the applicant by her, but the said fact is wrong. It is also stated that there is no injury report to corroborate the prosecution story.

¶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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the victim is a lady and her husband used to do job elsewhere, as such, on his coming to the house, the FIR has been instituted. Hence, the delay stands explained. However, they are unable to dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the delay in FIR and the discrepancy in the content of the FIR, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, 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.

¶9Without 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.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant, Nati @ Lallu 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;

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶12It 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 :- 12.12.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad