Disposed

Ankita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought cancellation of an anticipatory bail order granted to an accused-victim. The court disposed of the application by backing the earlier order on 27.07.2023 which rejected anticipatory bail and directed the applicant to seek regular bail from the Trial Court, finding no purpose served in cancelling the previous order.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.07.2023 in W.P. No. 1619 of 2023.

Ankita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49641

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 48 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ankita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Seema Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Seema Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant/ victim/ prosecutrix, Shri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. and Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail order dated 30.09.2022 granted by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1652 of 2022 ' Aditya Singh versus State of U.P .'

¶8

This Court vide order dated 27.07.2023 rejected the second anticipatory bail application of the accused-applicant in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1619 of 2023 ' Aditya Singh versus State of U.P .' which reads as under:-

¶9

"1. Heard Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. and Ms. Seema Kashyap, learned Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of victim/ prosecutrix, same is taken on record.

¶10

This is a second anticipatory bail application. The applicant has been granted anticipatory bail on 30.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1652 of 2022 ' Aditya Singh versus State of U.P .' till completion of the investigation.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in terms of the order dated 30.09.2022 ( supra ) the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Now, chargesheet has been filed under Section 323/ 376/ 328/ 506 I.P.C. under the same case crime number i.e. Case Crime No.208 of 2022 at Police Station- Chowk, District- Lucknow. The copy of the chargesheet has been shown to the Court by the learned A.G.A.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the present applicant has cooperated in the investigation and chargesheet has been filed, therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal Vs.

¶13

State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the victim/ prosecutrix and learned A.G.A. have opposed the aforesaid prayer and have submitted that on the stage of investigation, the allegations and material were based on FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix so recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. but during investigation, the Investigating Agency has collected the reliable evidences to suggest that the applicant may be punished not only under those Sections wherein the FIR was lodged i.e. Sections 323 & 376 I.P.C. but Section 328 I.P.C. has also been added. Those allegations would be tested before the learned Trial Court where the applicant will have to prove that those allegations are not sustainable in the eyes of law and prosecution will have to prove that those allegations are established against the applicant. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall arrive on conclusion as to whether the offences under which the chargesheet has been filed against the applicant are established or not. Therefore, both the aforesaid counsels have requested that instead of granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant at this stage he may be directed to appear before the learned Trial Court and obtain regular bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the chargesheet which have been submitted by the Investigating Officer before the competent authority on 22.07.2023, I am not inclined to grant second anticipatory bail to the present applicant. The allegations are serious under which the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, I hereby reject the second anticipatory bail application. However, it is directed that the applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court by filing his regular bail application within two weeks and if such regular bail application is filed, the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the aforesaid bail application strictly in accordance with law with expedition."

¶16

By means of the aforesaid order, the second anticipatory bail application has been rejected and direction has been issued to the accused-applicant to appear before the learned Trial Court and to move his regular bail, therefore, no purpose would be served to cancel the order dated 30.09.2022 whereby the accused-applicant was granted anticipatory bail till completion of the investigation.

¶17

As a matter of fact, the grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant/ victim/ prosecutrix has been satisfied and she has no objection if the present application is decided in terms of the order dated 27.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1619 of 2023. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of finally in terms of the order dated 27.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1619 of 2023.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Mohd. Sharif

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

C/M Sri Jai Narain Misra P.G. College (Thru. Its Manager ) Lko. and Another Vs Dr. Sudhir Kumar, Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow

Ram Avatar Verma Vs Parshuram, Tehsildar / Assistant Collector, Tehsil Mankapur, Gonda

Ram Teerath Pandey Vs Chandra Bhadra Singh @ Sonu, Manager of the C/M Rashtriya Inter College Mayang, Sultanpur

Jitendra Chaudhary and Others Vs Sadhana Srivastava, Director Internal Accounts and Audit, Directorate, Lko.

Updesh Kumari Vs Ajeet Kumar, Distt. Basic Education Officer, Sitapur and Another

Dileep Kumar Mishra and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Civil Secrett. Lko. and 4 Others