Allowed

Hariom v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022ABAIL/12445/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case alleging sexual offenses and outraging modesty, relying on the precedent set by Sushila Aggarwal. The bail was granted subject to conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-interference.

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12445 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Hariom Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,Gaya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Gaya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0316 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354(B) and 506 IPC, Police Station- Raya, District-Mathura, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have entered into the house of the first informant on 31.8.2022 and is stated to have outraged the modesty of his wife and is even stated to have torn her clothes off. On raising of alarm by the victim and her children, the applicant is stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence threatening her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by about 14 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations levelled in the FIR have been rather diminished by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR has been lodged after legal consultation. The applicant has a criminal history of one case, which has been explained in para 16 of the affidavit. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. 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.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-(2020) 5 SCC 1", the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant Hariom be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) 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 court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

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;

¶14

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

¶21

Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.15 09:56:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banwari Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anwar Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Mahakar and Another Vs State of U.P and Another