High Court

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 215 of 2023, under Sections 363,506 I.P.C., 67-B I.T. Act & 13/14 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Maharajganj Tarai, District- Balrampur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 25.11.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- " On query being asked to the State Counsel, he pointed out that the notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0215 of 2023, under sections 363 and 506 of IPC and 67-B I.T. Act and 13/14 of Pocso Act P.S.- Maharjganj Tarai District-Balrampur. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant never enticed away the alleged victim and the statement of the victim also demolishes the story of prosecution and this case will not lead to punishment of the applicant. He next added that due to enmity, the name of the present applicant is implicated in the first information report though, there is no cogent piece of evidence against him as the victim was not recovered from possession of the applicant rather, police has recovered the alleged victim elsewhere. He also added that the age of the victim as per the report of medical board is 18 years and as per the radiological report, the age is 19 years therefore, submissions is that the this case will not come under the purview of the offences under the Pocso Act. He next submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the offences or will threaten the alleged victim. He argued that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he undertakes that he will never abscond from any proceedings arising out of trial and will always cooperate as and when required. He also submits that there is apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that as per the version of the first information report, at first hand by the guardian of the victim that the age of the victim is 16 years and therefore, the Pocso Act is also charged upon the applicant. He submits that the sanctity of the statement of the victim, being minor cannot be considered and there are other corroborative evidences against the applicant as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that notice has been served by the State, but no one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and as per the law laid down in the case of Junaid versus State of U.P. 2021 SCC Online AII 463, the service of notice is sufficient. This Court has also taken note of the fact that as per the medical board report, the age of the alleged victim is 18 years and as per the rediological report, the age of the victim is 19 years. The victim in her statement stated that she was intended to perform marriage with the applicant and the applicant never enticed away, but she with her own sweetwill went away; Further, the chargesheet has been filed and thus, there is no apprehension that applicant will not cooperate with the investigation proceedings. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Arman @ Farman Khan shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025, as fresh. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. " State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. It has also not been pleaded by counsel for the State that the present applicant is not cooperating with the trial proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant namely, Arman @ Farman Khan till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Shravan

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 215 of 2023, under Sections 363,506 I.P.C., 67-B I.T. Act & 13/14 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Maharajganj Tarai, District- Balrampur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 25.11.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- " On query being asked to the State Counsel, he pointed out that the notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0215 of 2023, under sections 363 and 506 of IPC and 67-B I.T. Act and 13/14 of Pocso Act P.S.- Maharjganj Tarai District-Balrampur. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant never enticed away the alleged victim and the statement of the victim also demolishes the story of prosecution and this case will not lead to punishment of the applicant. He next added that due to enmity, the name of the present applicant is implicated in the first information report though, there is no cogent piece of evidence against him as the victim was not recovered from possession of the applicant rather, police has recovered the alleged victim elsewhere. He also added that the age of the victim as per the report of medical board is 18 years and as per the radiological report, the age is 19 years therefore, submissions is that the this case will not come under the purview of the offences under the Pocso Act. He next submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the offences or will threaten the alleged victim. He argued that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he undertakes that he will never abscond from any proceedings arising out of trial and will always cooperate as and when required. He also submits that there is apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that as per the version of the first information report, at first hand by the guardian of the victim that the age of the victim is 16 years and therefore, the Pocso Act is also charged upon the applicant. He submits that the sanctity of the statement of the victim, being minor cannot be considered and there are other corroborative evidences against the applicant as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that notice has been served by the State, but no one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and as per the law laid down in the case of Junaid versus State of U.P. 2021 SCC Online AII 463, the service of notice is sufficient. This Court has also taken note of the fact that as per the medical board report, the age of the alleged victim is 18 years and as per the rediological report, the age of the victim is 19 years. The victim in her statement stated that she was intended to perform marriage with the applicant and the applicant never enticed away, but she with her own sweetwill went away; Further, the chargesheet has been filed and thus, there is no apprehension that applicant will not cooperate with the investigation proceedings. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Arman @ Farman Khan shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025, as fresh. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. " State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. It has also not been pleaded by counsel for the State that the present applicant is not cooperating with the trial proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant namely, Arman @ Farman Khan till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Shravan