High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136081 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 798 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Sahni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Patel,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Pandey
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This is the repeat application on behalf of the accused-applicant- Suraj Kumar Sahni seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 528 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 342, 406, 504, 376 IPC, Police Station- Gulriha, District- Gorakhpur. 3. The first anticipatory bail application of the accused-applicant has been decided on merits and it has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.9.2023 in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10450 of 2023. 4. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR is that the marriage of the informant/ victim was performed with one Bholu on 10.5.2022 but she was not interested in her husband and was having mobile chats with the present accused applicant. However, a dispute arose between the couple and a Panchayat was held in the village wherein a decision was taken that the lady is free to go and live with the present accused applicant Suraj and accordingly, she went to the house of present accused applicant. Subsequently after some days it was alleged that the present accused applicant made physical relations forcibly with the victim continuously for a considerable period of time and FIR was lodged by the victim herself against the present accused applicant. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution story is a bundle of false facts and a concocted story has been made by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the victim lady was residing with the present accused applicant on her own free will as per the decision taken in the Panchayat wherein all the stake holders were present. It is also submitted that no rape was committed by the accused applicant with the victim/ informant of this case because she was living with him on her own free will. It is further submitted that in the instant matter final report was submitted by the police which was protested by the informant but however, the concerned Court after rejection of the final report passed an order for further investigation in this matter which is going on. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12589 of 2025 was preferred by the accused applicant for quashing of the FIR, however the prayer was refused by the Division Bench of this Court and the accused applicant was given liberty to appear before the Court and to file his bail/ anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.6.2025. Submission is that the said order has not been complied with by the accused applicant. It is also submitted that earlier another Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12440 of 2023 was also preferred by the accused applicant which was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.8.2023. It is also submitted that the victim informant is a poor lady and forcible physical relations have been made by the accused applicant with her and he is not entitled for any relief from this Court in the form of anticipatory bail. 7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of this case and also after perusing the case diary wherein the factum of Panchayat and decision taken therein to send the victim lady with the accused applicant and she on her own free will left her house, without entering into the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the report submitted by the I.O. as a result of further investigation, provided the accused applicant cooperates with the investigation. 10. The application is allowed accordingly. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. 12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad