Allowed

Shivam Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024ABAIL/8725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a POCSO and Section 354 IPC case after charge sheet and summons. Citing Supreme Court guidelines for offences punishable up to seven years, court granted bail with conditions protecting the victim.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivam Gupta vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:187605

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8725 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shivam Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants -Shivam Gupta in Case Crime No. 545 of 2023, under Sections 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Narkhi, District -Firozabad.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant has caught hold the hand of the victim and in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also the allegations are to the aforesaid effect. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence under Section 7/8 POCSO Act would not be made out against the applicant as there is no allegation of any sexual assault made by the applicant. It is further submitted that so far as Section 354 IPC is concerned, the same is punishable up to seven years. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case charge sheet has also been submitted and summoning order has been issued on 10.7.2024. It is submitted that the applicant would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 354 I.P.C. which is punishable upto 7 years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant submits that the applicant as previously also harassed the victim, however, he could not demonstrate as to how the harassment was made. It seems that the parties are resident of same locality.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the offence under Sections 354 I.P.C. is punishable upto 7 years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶12

The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines

¶13

provided category/type of offences. Once of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto 7 years.

¶15

It is not the case of the opposite party that the applicant was arrested for offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party for that the applicant has not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto 7 years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

¶16

It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Learned counsel for opposite parties has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶18

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶19

In view of above, applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para-2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶21

(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 office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶23

(iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.

¶25

(vi) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶26

(vii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to Investigating Officer, and the court concerned.

¶27

(viii) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶28

(ix) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶29

(x) It is directed that the applicant shall not disturbed the peace and tranquility of the victim or his family members.

¶30

(xi) S.H.O. concerned is directed to ensure that the victim is not harassed by the applicant.

¶31

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

¶32

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶33

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 Abhishek Sri.

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shivam Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Lekhraj vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roshni vs State of U.P.

Kishor Khan vs State of Up and Another

Rajkumar vs State of U.P.