Allowed

Jai Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023ABAIL/2623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving grave offences including POCSO and sexual assault, pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, citing lack of credible evidence and prior cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. Bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each.

Jai Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132877

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2623 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Prakash And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- 1. Jai Prakash, 2. Kalendra Kumar and 3. Om Prakash seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0691 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 342, 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Handia, District Allahabad.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the applicants along with other accused person, who are real brothers, have been falsely implicated in this case. Though in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the prosecutrix has corroborated the prosecution version but in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC she has categorically denied any sexual offence committed against her by any of the accused persons. She has not stated anywhere in the said statement under Section 164 CrPC that the present applicants had adduced her and taken her with them or made any sexual or physical relation with her or kept her in confinement. It is further submitted that main co-accused Shiv Prakash has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1934 of 2023 by order dated 18.04.2023. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

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, llikelihood 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Considering the settled principles 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 of 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) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶13

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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:-

¶15

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for

¶16

interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶17

(ii) The applicants 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 office.

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Fhd

¶21

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jai Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash and 2 Others 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

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Usha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaje Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another