Allowed

Rajesh Khatik v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023ABAIL/12321/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application by Rajesh Khatik facing charges of outraging modesty and theft. The court cited Supreme Court precedents on personal liberty and police cooperation. Bail was granted until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and standard conditions.

Rajesh Khatik Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220345

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12321 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Khatik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Rajesh Khatik seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.2 of 2023, under Sections 452, 376, 380, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Koraon, District Prayagraj.

¶7

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

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. in the matter has been lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation regarding delay. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and the applicant is cooperating with the same. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the applicant has been levelled to outrage the modesty of the victim and in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC similar statement has been given by her but however she has made a twisted story in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and allegation of rape has been levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that the real sister-in-law (Jethani) of the victim in her statement under Section 161 CrPC has categorically stated that at the time of the incident when on noise she asked the victim as to what happened, she alleged only an offence of theft against the applicant. No internal or external medical examination of the victim has been performed in this matter, as the victim herself refused to be medically examined. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that in the F.I.R and also in the statement of the victim under Section 161 CrPC no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

It reveals from the perusal of the record that the applicant after entering into the house of the victim in the night tried to outrage her modesty and her mobile phone was also stolen. F.I.R. was lodged on 5.6.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that the applicant has been cooperative with investigation so far. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit and there is no medical report of the victim on record.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

¶13

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶14

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶15

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶18

(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 office.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.11.2023

¶22

safi

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Khatik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Khatik v. State of U.P.

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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shivchandra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meenu Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeet Gupta Alias Ramjit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another