Hashim v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11997 of 2023 Applicant :- Hashim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Faisal Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Singh Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Learned counsel has further stated that the said of the applicant being a blind person stands unrebutted in the counter affidavit. The applicant, being a blind person, is not able to come all the way to the High Court to file rejoinder affidavit, as such he does not want to file it.

¶3Heard Sri Mohammad Faisal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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.215 of 2023, registered under Sections 376D, 506, 392 and 342 IPC at Police Station-Jalesar, District Etah with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶5As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have befriended the informant on the pretext that she shall be treated by him and used to administer her Unani medicine. Later on, the applicant is stated to have taken her away by concealing his religion to Loni Ghaziabad thereupon to his parental house Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the applicant and two unknown persons are stated to have committed gang rape with her before 13.02.2023. On 13.02.2023, the victim could somehow escape from the captivity and had posted a registered letter to the SSP, Etah on 13.04.2023, as such the FIR was instituted after moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the letter to the SSP, Etah has been addressed after a delay of one month that too is an inordinate delay. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a complete blind person as is evident from annexure no.3 filed with the anticipatory bail application. There is no possibility of him taking the victim altogether to Loni Ghaziabad and then to Khatauli Muzaffarnagar.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations are vague and have been levelled just to coerce the applicant into compromise and extract money. Several 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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.

¶8Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9On 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.

¶10In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Hashim 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.

¶11It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 15.12.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad