Allowed

Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024/364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court converted an interim anticipatory bail order into an absolute order, directing the applicant to surrender to the trial court. The court considered the applicant's cooperation, lack of criminal history, and the statements of the prosecutrix, allowing the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail protection made absolute; applicant directed to surrender before trial court and be released on personal bond and two sureties with specified conditions.

Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55461

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 364 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Azmi Yousuf,Prabhat Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Pal Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/ Case Crime No.0227/2022 under sections 452, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Payagpur, District Bahraich.

¶7

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

¶8

This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 15.02.2023 has passed the following order:-

¶9

"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.0227/2022 under sections 452, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Payagpur, district Bahraich.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as also Mr. Shiv Pal Singh, Advocate who has filed vakalatnama for the complainant, which is taken on record.

¶11

The prosecution case is that on 28/29.6.2022, while the prosecutrix was sleeping at the roof with her nephew and niece, the applicant who is a resident of the same village came at the roof through the stairs and tried to pull the complainant with oblique motive.Then the complainant awoke and shouted, on which the applicant threatened her for dire consequences and ran away.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the prosecution story, it is evident that there is no allegation of

¶13

rape, from the statement of the prosecutrix under section 161 CrPC, again no allegation of rape has been levelled on the applicant or any one else. The incident is of 28/29.6.2022. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination on 30.6.2022. In the medical also, there is allegation of only molestation and no allegation of rape has been made while giving statement before the Medical Officer by the prosecutrix. In the medical, no signs of sexual violence or force could be found.

¶14

It is next submitted that only with a view to falsely implicate the applicant, in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 CrPC on 7.7.2022, for the first time, the entire story of the prosecution has been changed and allegation of rape has been levelled. The statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 CrPC is contradictory to her statement before the Doctor, the statement under section 161 CrPc and the averments made in the first information report. It is a case of false allegation.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶16

Learned Addl. Government Advocate and learned counsel for the complainant pray for and are allowed fifteen days' time to file objections.

¶17

List on 23.3.2023.

¶18

Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 CrPC, the undertaking that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation, as also the statement under section 164 CrPc of the prosecutrix, and the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶20

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of

¶21

the Court.

¶22

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. Applicant has co-operated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial. He has no criminal antecedent.

¶24

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶25

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, applicant has no criminal history, he has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 15.02.2023 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶26

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, the accused applicant- Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha is directed to surrender before trial court, if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question. The accused applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous

¶29

permission of the court;

¶30

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶31

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶32

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶33

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶34

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

¶36

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Yunus Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Manmohan Yogi Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

Pintu Alias Sher Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Mohammad Shuaib Beg @ Shibu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ramesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another