Allowed

Shabana and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2023ABAIL/7829/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to four applicants accused of wrongful confinement and attempting forceful marriage under IPC Sections 363, 366, and 342. The court held that considering the nature of the offence, the applicants' role, and the lack of credible evidence necessitating arrest at this stage, bail is appropriate until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicants subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Shabana and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146447

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7829 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shabana And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

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

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- 1. Shabana, 2. Afsar Ali, 3. Shahrukh Ali and 4. Muskan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 342 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi.

¶9

It is alleged in the FIR that all the accused applicants kept the minor daughter of the informant under wrongful confinement in their house and they are trying for forceful marriage of the victim without any conversion of religion with the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil. FIR was lodged on 6.6.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶10

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. It is further submitted that in the FIR itself it has no where mentioned that the present applicants took the victim of the case from her house and contrary to that it is mentioned in the FIR that she left her house with the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has not corroborated the prosecution version and she has stated that she has left her house on her own will. It is further submitted that earlier a compromise had also taken place between the parties in the police station itself wherein the parties gave consent for marriage of the victim with the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit and they are cooperating with the

¶11

investigation of the case. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the applicants are trying to solemnize the marriage of the victim with main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil without any conversion of religion. It is further submitted that engagement of the victim had already taken place prior to the incident. It is further submitted that the minor victim has been kept under wrongful confinement by the present accused applicants and the family members of the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.7.2023 Fhd

¶24

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

Shabana and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabana and 3 Others 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

Sufiyana Begum Vs State of U.P.

Tanseer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Ji Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another