Sanjeet Kumar v. State of U.P

#1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

#2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 0481 of 2024, under Section 64 of B.N.S., Police Station- Sector 39, Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

#4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship. In the statement of the victim under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., there is no allegation of forcible sexual assault against the applicant. It is next contended that earlier the applicant was granted bail by the concerned Session Court after perusal of the statements of the victim vide order dated 06.09.2024 under Sections 75, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 67 of I.T. Act. During the course of investigation, Section 64 of B.N.S. was added by the Investigating Officer. The applicant seeks bail in the added section. He further submits that for the reasons stated in the order dated 06.09.2024, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the added section as well. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is still pending. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

#5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

#6. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that in the statement of the victim under Sections 180 B.N.S,S, and 183 B.N.S.S., there is no allegation of forcible sexual assault against the applicant, the fact that earlier the applicant was granted bail by the concerned Session Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 under Sections 75, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 67 of I.T. Act, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

#7. In the event of arrest, the applicant Sanjeet Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. (v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. (vi) 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 351 of B.N.S.S.

#8. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

#9. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Sachin Mishra SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad