High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3015 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Smt. Draupadi Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J. Heard Shri Satya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application has been moved by the accused- applicants- Smt. Draupadi Devi and Akash Yadav, in Case Crime No. 34 of 2022, under Sections 354, 509, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Nagar, District Basti, with the prayer to grant them anticipatory bail in the above mentioned case. Learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is case of sheer misuse of the process of law as the first information report in this case has been lodged by the informant i.e. Smt. Bindu Devi w/o Ram Prakash Chaurasiya on 15.12.2021 pertaining to an incident which had allegedly occurred on 15.12.2021 and it is stated in the first information report that applicant no.2/Akash used to molest the victim/prosecutrix and assaulted her by 'iron rod and danda' on the instigation of applicant no.1 and by such assault the victim/prosecutrix has sustained grievous injuries. Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in fact the applicant no.2 and the prosecutrix were in a relationship which was not liked by the family members of the prosecutrix and it was on 15.12.2021 that on knowing the affair of the prosecutrix and applicant no.2, the father of the victim as well as her uncles had assaulted the applicant no.2 and victim brutally and in this regard an F.I.R. was lodged by applicant no.1 at Police Station Nagar, Basti on 15.12.2021 naming therein the father of the prosecutrix and his two brothers. It is also submitted that in the incident occurred on 15.12.2021 it was not only the applicant no.2 which was assaulted by the family members of the victim but the family members of the victim had also assaulted the prosecutrix and this fact has been mentioned in the first information report lodged by the applicant no.1 and by the assault so given by the accused named in the F.I.R., the applicant no.2 had also sustained grievous injuries (fracture of right humerus and left ulna bone). It is further submitted that the injuries allegedly sustained by the victim/prosecutrix were examined on 15.12.2021 at District Hospital Basti and after noticing that an F.I.R. has been lodged by the applicant no.1, the informant of the instant case by taking advantage of the fact that the victim has sustained injuries of the assault given by them lodged instant F.I.R. on the basis of fabricated and concocted facts. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix has also given the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under the influence of her family and the investigating officer despite knowing all the facts and the correct state of affairs is trying hard to apprehend the applicant and, therefore, protection from arrest be granted to the applicant. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/informant, however, submits that the informant of the case had tried hard to lodged the first information report of the incident which had occurred on 15.12.2021 but due to the fact that the accused persons are influential the F.I.R. could not be lodged and it was only on the basis of an application given on 05.02.2022 to the S.H.O. concerned, the first information report could be lodged. It is also submitted that the applicant is also having criminal history of one case pertaining to Section 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. and, therefore, they are not entitled for any protection from arrest. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicants on the ground that the applicants have committed heinous offence and they are not entitled for any protection from arrest. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, since all the material/evidence available before the Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, the instant anticipatory bail application could be finally disposed of. Perusal of the record primafacie reveals that the age of applicant no.2 at the date of occurrence was 17 years 05 months and 05 days as per the High School Examination Certificate of the applicant, wherein the date of birth of applicant has been shown as 10.07.2004 and a copy of the same has been placed at Page No. 32 of the paper book. F.I.R. of date 15.12.2021 lodged by the applicant no.1 namely Smt. Draupdi is also on record wherein specific allegations have been made that on coming to the knowledge that the applicant no.2 and prosecutrix is having affair, both (applicant no.2 and the victim/prosecutrix) were assaulted by the father of the prosecutrix and the other two named persons in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant no.1 Perusal of the record further reveals that the applicant no.2 by the assault given by the accused persons of the F.I.R. lodged by applicant no.1 has sustained grievous injuries and also resulted in the fracture of two bones namely 'humerus and ulna'. It is also evident that the injuries allegedly sustained by the victim/prosecutrix is also of the date i.e. 15.12.2021 pertaining to which specific allegations have been made by the applicant no.1 in her first information report that these injuries have been caused by the assault given by the father of the victim/prosecutrix and his other two associates. It is vehemently submitted that statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been given under the influence of his family members. It is also submitted that applicant no.1 is a patient of cancer. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the first information report lodged by the applicant no.1 on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.12.2021, in the considered opinion of this Court for the reason given above, protection from arrest could be granted to the applicants. Having regard to the special circumstances mentioned herein- above, the instant application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants namely Smt. Draupadi Devi and Akash Yadav involved in the above noted case, they shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer with the following conditions:- (1) The applicants shall co-operate in the investigation as well as in the trial and they will remain present before the investigating officer as and when required even for the purpose of recovery of any fact under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 561] and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1. (2) The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required; (3) The applicants 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; (4) The applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court. Order Date :- 21.4.2022 Praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.04.22 16:17:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad