Vikrant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7280

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2232 of 2024

Applicant :- Vikrant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

From perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that the notice has been issued to complainant/ informant/ opposite party no.2 and as per the office report the same has also been served but no one is present for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No.0120 of 2024 under Section 363 and 366 IPC, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao.

¶9

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.09.2024, the following order was passed:-

¶10

"The present application has been filed by the applicant Vikrant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No.0120 of 2024 under Section 363 and 366 IPC, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶12

Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶13

Steps be taken within a week.

¶14

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that daughter of the informant has been enticed away on 16.6.2024 at about 10.00 p.m. by Rahul of the village who use to talk to her secretly.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has only alleged that the applicant was present with Rahul. No other allegation has been made. While making statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has not taken the name of the applicant. He is not named in the FIR. There is no corroborative evidence in the prosecution case such as medical etc. In the ossification test the

¶16

victim has been found to be 18 years old. As per the school record the victim has been found 16 years and 10 months old. Investigation qua the present applicant is going on. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the bail prayer.

¶18

Perused the record.

¶19

On due consideration to the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. so also the contents of the F.I.R. and the fact that there is no corroborative evidence in the prosecution case as also 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.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory 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.

¶21

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and 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 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

List on 28.10.2024.

¶24

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file objections/counter affidavit. "

¶25

From perusal of the order dated 27.09.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Vikrant till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶28

(ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶29

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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶31

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

¶32

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶33

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶34

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikrant v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Girja Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ratna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Karan Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Chaman @ Hafeej Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sec. Home Lko

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

Radheyshyam Pasi Alias Radhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.