Dismissed

Mohit @ Moti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2023ABAIL/13481/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application, the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refused an application for anticipatory bail. The court found that the allegations were serious and that the case was not a fit case for anticipatory bail, relying on settled principles. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is refused; the application is rejected.

Mohit @ Moti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117400

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13481 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Mohit @ Moti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Kumar Dwivedi,Virendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Mohit @ Moti seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0103 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Faijganj Behta, District Budaun.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None is present for the informant even when the case is called in revised list.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the medical report of the prosecutrix does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC the prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the present applicant. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix of the case is major and no thorough investigation has been made by the Investigating Officer in respect of the real age of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that the elder sister of the victim, namely, Kanchan, is wedded with the elder brother of the applicant and the victim, being the relative of the applicant, used to come to his house and they fell in love and solemnized their marriage with their own free will in the temple at Punjab. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Applicant was cooperative with the investigating officer during course of investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Court till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10575 of 2022 vide order dated 11.8.2022 and now charge sheet has been filed. It has been

¶9

submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant regarding commission of the alleged crime. Keeping in view the entire evidence available in the case diary, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet into the matter. Prosecutrix has been found minor and her consent to live or marry with the applicant has no legal value. Offence is serious.

¶11

In this matter, F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on 20.4.2022 that on 13.4.2022 at 4.00 a.m. named accused persons Mohit, Tinku, Shailendra and Naresh kidnapped his daughter from his house and she is not traceable so far. Investigation started and victim was recovered.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the

¶16

applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶17

The application is rejected .

¶18

Order Date :- 25.5.2023

¶19

safi

¶20

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

Mohit @ Moti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit @ Moti 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

Smt Anushka Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sher @ Shera Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Israr Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Sunil Vohra @ Rakesh Kumar Vohra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others