High Court

1. Heard Shri Brij Mohan Sahai, assisted by Shri Amar Singh, Advocate appearing for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

2. No one is present on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant, while name of Shri Hari Nath Singh has been published in the cause-list as counsel for the informant/complainant and perusal of order-sheet would reveal that last opportunity was provided to learned counsel for the informant/complainant to participate in the proceedings on account of medical condition of the applicant, however, neither learned counsel for the informant is present nor any adjournment has been moved.

3. The instant application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Ankit Shukla in Case Crime No.0729/2017, under Sections 376-D IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act lodged at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Allegations, as levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, are patently absurd, concocted and could not be believed on the touchstone of probability. It is further submitted that if the FIR and the statements of the victim are read conjointly, it will emerge that marriage of the victim/prosecutrix was scheduled to be solemnized with the applicant, however, on some pretext, the same could not be materialized and thereafter, in order to teach a lesson to the applicant and his brother, a false case of sexual assault has been cooked up.

5. It is vehemently submitted that initially a compromise had taken place between the parties before lodging of the FIR, however, thereafter the prosecution side lodged the FIR. It is further submitted that the manner in which the sexual assault is shown to have been committed could not be believed by any prudent person as it is stated that the applicant and his real brother had taken the prosecutrix in order to do some shopping with regard to solemnization of marriage and thereafter they both (applicant and his real brother) committed sexual assault with the prosecutrix which has been negated by the medical report of the prosecutrix wherein no abnormality or any injury etc has been found and the same is clean and, therefore, the allegations, as levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix are not substantiated by any medical evidence.

6. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused, namely, Arpit Shukla had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC No.255 of 2024 for anticipatory bail which could not find favour, however, a direction was given to the trial Court to dispose of regular bail application of the applicant in a time-bound manner and thereafter regular bail application was moved by the applicant before the trial Court and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 02.04.2024. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co- accused/Arpit Shukla and no benefit would occur by relegating the applicant to approach the trial Court for the purpose of obtaining regular bail, as charge-sheet in this case has already been filed and trial/case is pending before the trial Court and the applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that for a long time the applicant has not appeared before the trial Court and having regard to the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that it is admitted to the prosecutrix that her marriage was arranged with the applicant. They both were going together frequently for doing purchase for the purpose of marriage ceremony, however, thereafter it appears that some differences had arisen and the marriage of the prosecutrix could not be solemnized with the applicant. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that before lodging of the FIR attempts were made to settle the dispute, however, the settlement was not materialized and the FIR came to be filed. Attention of this Court has been drawn on the observation of the trial Court made while enlarging the identically placed co-accused/Arpit Shukla on regular bail wherein the trial Court has noticed improbability of the incident and also the fact that it is on account of the fact that when marriage of the prosecutrix could not be solemnized the instant case has been registered. Appreciation of evidence in view of the material and material collected by the investigating officer is an area earmarked for the trial Court. What is evident is that it appears to be an admitted situation that marriage of the prosecutrix was scheduled to be solemnized with the applicant and thereafter some differences had arisen between the parties and the marriage was not solemnized. It is also noticed that on 18.04.2024 the applicant was granted interim protection and nothing has been brought in the knowledge of this Court which may suggest that liberty granted to the applicant has been misused. Thus, it is evident that the liberty granted to the applicant has not been misused by him. It is also admitted to the parties that in this case charge-sheet has already been filed. The guilt of the applicant may very well be adjudicated during the course of trial.

9. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 as well as in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565 and in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, protection from arrest during the course of trial may also be extended to the applicant.

10. In result, the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Ankit Shuklais allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, involved in the above noted case, under any process of the trial court or on his surrender/ appearance before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 26.01.2025, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 26.01.2025 and will cooperate in the trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and will make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact, if the case is directed to be further investigated.

3. The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and especially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

5. 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.

11. 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 his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

12. 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 proceedings before the trial court in any manner. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 MVS/-

1. Heard Shri Brij Mohan Sahai, assisted by Shri Amar Singh, Advocate appearing for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

2. No one is present on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant, while name of Shri Hari Nath Singh has been published in the cause-list as counsel for the informant/complainant and perusal of order-sheet would reveal that last opportunity was provided to learned counsel for the informant/complainant to participate in the proceedings on account of medical condition of the applicant, however, neither learned counsel for the informant is present nor any adjournment has been moved.

3. The instant application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Ankit Shukla in Case Crime No.0729/2017, under Sections 376-D IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act lodged at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Allegations, as levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, are patently absurd, concocted and could not be believed on the touchstone of probability. It is further submitted that if the FIR and the statements of the victim are read conjointly, it will emerge that marriage of the victim/prosecutrix was scheduled to be solemnized with the applicant, however, on some pretext, the same could not be materialized and thereafter, in order to teach a lesson to the applicant and his brother, a false case of sexual assault has been cooked up.

5. It is vehemently submitted that initially a compromise had taken place between the parties before lodging of the FIR, however, thereafter the prosecution side lodged the FIR. It is further submitted that the manner in which the sexual assault is shown to have been committed could not be believed by any prudent person as it is stated that the applicant and his real brother had taken the prosecutrix in order to do some shopping with regard to solemnization of marriage and thereafter they both (applicant and his real brother) committed sexual assault with the prosecutrix which has been negated by the medical report of the prosecutrix wherein no abnormality or any injury etc has been found and the same is clean and, therefore, the allegations, as levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix are not substantiated by any medical evidence.

6. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused, namely, Arpit Shukla had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC No.255 of 2024 for anticipatory bail which could not find favour, however, a direction was given to the trial Court to dispose of regular bail application of the applicant in a time-bound manner and thereafter regular bail application was moved by the applicant before the trial Court and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 02.04.2024. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co- accused/Arpit Shukla and no benefit would occur by relegating the applicant to approach the trial Court for the purpose of obtaining regular bail, as charge-sheet in this case has already been filed and trial/case is pending before the trial Court and the applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that for a long time the applicant has not appeared before the trial Court and having regard to the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that it is admitted to the prosecutrix that her marriage was arranged with the applicant. They both were going together frequently for doing purchase for the purpose of marriage ceremony, however, thereafter it appears that some differences had arisen and the marriage of the prosecutrix could not be solemnized with the applicant. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that before lodging of the FIR attempts were made to settle the dispute, however, the settlement was not materialized and the FIR came to be filed. Attention of this Court has been drawn on the observation of the trial Court made while enlarging the identically placed co-accused/Arpit Shukla on regular bail wherein the trial Court has noticed improbability of the incident and also the fact that it is on account of the fact that when marriage of the prosecutrix could not be solemnized the instant case has been registered. Appreciation of evidence in view of the material and material collected by the investigating officer is an area earmarked for the trial Court. What is evident is that it appears to be an admitted situation that marriage of the prosecutrix was scheduled to be solemnized with the applicant and thereafter some differences had arisen between the parties and the marriage was not solemnized. It is also noticed that on 18.04.2024 the applicant was granted interim protection and nothing has been brought in the knowledge of this Court which may suggest that liberty granted to the applicant has been misused. Thus, it is evident that the liberty granted to the applicant has not been misused by him. It is also admitted to the parties that in this case charge-sheet has already been filed. The guilt of the applicant may very well be adjudicated during the course of trial.

9. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 as well as in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565 and in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, protection from arrest during the course of trial may also be extended to the applicant.

10. In result, the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Ankit Shuklais allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, involved in the above noted case, under any process of the trial court or on his surrender/ appearance before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 26.01.2025, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 26.01.2025 and will cooperate in the trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and will make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact, if the case is directed to be further investigated.

3. The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and especially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

5. 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.

11. 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 his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

12. 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 proceedings before the trial court in any manner. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 MVS/-