Allowed

Anil Ahwan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2022ABAIL/6276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application against alleged offences under IPC and POCSO, holding that cases are made out despite allegations of rape and marital concealment, subject to specific bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and re-offending.

Anil Ahwan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6276 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Ahwan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 1238 of 2019, under Sections 376, 328, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Dadri, district Gautambuddh Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The FIR of this case was lodged by the complainant against the applicant alleging that she was having good terms with applicant and in the year 2009 applicant took her to the house of his friend and after mixing some intoxicant in her cold drink, he molested her and prepared a video and thereafter he has physically exploited her on the basis of that video and later on he secured a forged marriage certificate of Arya Samaj and got it registered, which the complainant later on got cancelled. Learned counsel submitted that FIR has been lodged on 02.11.2019 and the allegations made against the applicant are thoroughly false. In fact the complainant has married with applicant and the

¶8

marriage certificate of Arya Samaj has been annexed as annexure no. 3 to the application and the said marriage was also got registered. It has been pointed out that earlier the complainant has filed a civil case no. 900/2019 against the applicant under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act on 06.09.2019, wherein she has admitted her marriage with applicant. Statement of complainant was also referred and it was submitted that the complainant/prosecutrix is aged about 25 years and the FIR has been lodged with long delay and the attending facts and circumstances of the case show that the allegations of rape made against the applicant are thoroughly false. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. Earlier applicant has filed a 482 Cr.P.C. application no. 895 of 2020, wherein applicant has been granted interim relief but the said interim order could not be extended further and thus, the court below is proceeding further in view of judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in the year 2009 when applicant has committed rape upon the complainant/prosecutrix, she was a minor girl. It was submitted that in fact the applicant has performed marriage with complainant by concealing the fact that he was already married person, having two children, and that the registration of marriage was got cancelled by the complainant. Statement of

¶10

complainant, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was referred, wherein she has clearly made allegations of rape against the applicant.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principle 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 on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Anil Ahwan involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date

¶18

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.8.2022 Anand

¶23

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.06 17:34:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Ahwan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Ahwan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Harijan and Another Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijpal Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Narayan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.