Court allowed anticipatory bail to applicant Sahil in a case involving POCSO and kidnapping charges, citing Supreme Court precedent. Bail granted subject to personal bond and standard conditions.
Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and compliance with specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10550 of 2022
Applicant :- Sahil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kapil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kapil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Rakesh Soni, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in S.T. No.69 of 2022, (State Vs. Sahil and others), arising out of Case Crime No.164 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Binauli, District-Baghpat with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
As per prosecution, the FIR has been lodged on 08.05.2021 by father of the victim against three named accused and two unknown persons including the applicant, under Section 366 I.P.C. It has been alleged that on 16.04.2022 at about 11:30 A.M., the informant's minor daughter was found missing, therefore, a missing report was lodged on the same day. While searching for his daughter, on 08.05.2021, he was informed about the whereabouts of the victim, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the FIR has been lodged under Section 366 I.P.C., however, subsequently, after investigation, Section 376 and POCSO Act have also been
included. He further submits that there are variations in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which go to show that FIR has been lodged to falsely implicate the applicant. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she left her house out of her own sweet will along with the applicant. She herself took applicant along with her to Dehradun. She stated that applicant has not forced her to go along with him. She has performed court marriage on 20.05.2021 and have started living as husband and wife. She has denied any forceful relationship being established with her by the applicant. She wants to stay with her husband. She has also emphasized about the threat to life by her father and one Subhash, a friend of her father. She has specified that she wants to go along with her husband. As per the medical report, victim is 22 years old, copy of the said report has been placed at page 37 of the application. Earlier, the applicant had approached this Court, by means of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4746 of 2021 in which vide order dated 10.08.2021 petitioners therein were granted protection till submission of charge sheet. He further submits that charge sheet has been submitted on 27.05.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the persons namely, Javed and Noman, who had assisted the applicant in enticing away the victim, have already been granted anticipatory bail on 15.09.2022 after submission of the charge sheet. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or 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 during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A.as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by stating that as per school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 06.03.2005, from which she appears to be a minor.
On 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 entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in view of the judgement 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 judgement of the Apex Court.
In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant- Sahil involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. 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.
Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Rahul.
Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO case arising from allegations of kidnapping and sexual offences.
What conditions should be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶11
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sahil
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
