Suraj Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141618

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4812 of 2023

Applicant :- Suraj Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal,Anjana Verma,Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla,Udai Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aravind Kumar Tripathi,Hemant Kumar,Pandey Balkrishna

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Pandey Balkrishna, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.566 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant is a stdundet of B.Com. He further submits that due to property/road and wi the connivance of concenred police party, the applicant has beenf falsely implicated. Civil Suit is also pending between the parties and just to create the pressure in the pending civil suit, the impugned FIR has been lodged. He further submits that earlier the applicant has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2081 of 2023 and this Court by order dated 02.03.2021 while dismissing the writ petition directed the applicant to approach before the court below to seek anticipatory bail. Copy of order has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. Thereafter, the applicant has filed anticipatory bail application before the court below and the same has been dismissed, hence, this anticipatory bail application. He further submits that as per statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the viction has not levelled any allegation against the applicant. The victim

¶9

has clearly stated that she was having love affaires with co-accused Rahul an she had gone with the co-accused Rahul with her own free will. As per medical report, the age of the victim is 18 years. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph of 27 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Suraj Pal, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail 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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶14

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to

¶18

ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Dev Upadhyay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Ahsan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tausid Siddaqui @ Tausif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another