Vipin and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10534 of 2023 Applicant :- Vipin And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Tarun Jha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Crl. Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2023 is allowed.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶3This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicants - Vipin and Kallu in connection with Complaint Case No.06 of 2022 (Smt. Sushila Vs. Sher Singh and others) under Sections 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun.

¶4Alleging sexual assault and outraging the modesty of the minor victim, a criminal complaint was filed by the mother of the victim against five named accused persons, who were summoned to face trial by the Special Judge, POCSO Act under Sections 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act.

¶5It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the whole complaint story is false and fabricated. The present applicants and the complainant side had a property dispute regarding a wall prior to the present incident. The wife of co-accused Sher Singh has also lodged F.I.R. against the complainant side wherein trial is going on and the evidence has been concluded. It is further submitted that no process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants so far. They have not been declared as proclaimed offenders. Offences levelled against the applicants are punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. Applicants are ready and willing to cooperate with the trial court. Criminal history of the applicants have been satisfactorily explained.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that sexual assault has been committed with the minor daughter of the complainant and the victim herself as well as witnesses of the case have corroborated the complaint story in their statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and there is no chance of false implication of the applicants and in these circumstances, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶7In the present matter, offences levelled against the applicants are punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. Applicants are said to be willing and ready to cooperate with the trial court. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

¶8In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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.

¶9Hence, considering 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 applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid complaint case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(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 officer;

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad