Allowed

Raheem @ Raheem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024ABAIL/247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Raheem alias Raheem Khan in a case involving offences under POCSO Act and IPC. The court observed no arrest had been made and granted bail subject to conditions regarding appearance and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to grant anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions for appearance and cooperation.

Raheem @ Raheem Khan vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12152

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 247 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raheem @ Raheem Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. He further informs that the opposite party no. 2/informant has been sufficiently/personally served, however, she is not represent. In this regard, copy of communication sent by the concerned police station with regard to service upon opposite party no. 2/informant is placed for perusal of this Court and the same is taken on record.

¶8

This application has been moved by the applicant- Raheem alias Raheem Khan for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0489 of 2022, under Sections 354-D, 354, 504 and 506 IPC read with Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1) Dha and 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act lodged at Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant has fully cooperated in the investigation and after through investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted without making arrest of the applicant and since the investigating agency has itself not required the arrest of the applicant, the applicant is apprehending that when he will appear before the trial court and move application for regular bail, as per prevalent practice in the district courts the disposal of his regular bail application may take sometime and in the meantime he may be confined in prison which would not only give him a bad-name but also tarnish his reputation in the society and jeopardize his liberty. Various submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant in order to show that the case against the applicant has been falsely cooked

¶10

up and there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and that all the accused persons are real brothers which renders the whole prosecution story as highly improbable. The applicant is not having any previous criminal antecedent to his credit and there is no apprehension that the applicant after release on anticipatory bail may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled for any protection.

¶12

Considering the fact that the applicant has not been arrested by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, he appears to have cooperated in the investigation throughout, he is not having any previous criminal antecedent to his credit, the alleged offence wherein the charge-sheet has been submitted entails punishment upto 7 years and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020)5 SCC 1 (Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 1 SCC 694 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra) , 2021(6) SCC 64 MANU/SC/0360/2021 (Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others) and MANU/SC/0215/1980 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors vs. State of Punjab, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant - Raheem alias Raheem Khan deserves to be allowed. Thus, it is allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial Court or on his/her appearance/surrender before the trial Court within 20 days from today i.e. till 29.02.2024 whichever is earlier, he/she shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 29.02.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶14

(ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself/herself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.

¶15

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime

¶16

during his/her release on anticipatory bail.

¶17

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶18

(v). 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.

¶19

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶20

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 MVS/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raheem @ Raheem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raheem @ Raheem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mahesh Prasad Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chandraveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raheem @ Raheem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others