High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3837 of 2022 Applicant :- Asif Nizamuddin Siddique Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Patel,Hans Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwan Ahmad(Qureshi) Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J. Heard Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Arya and Mr. Hans Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad 'Qureshi',
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for first informant. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.403 of 2021, under Sections 354 (D), 506 IPC, Section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008, Police Station Cantt., District Prayagraj. Brief facts of the case are that complainant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj against the applicant for sexual harassment, threats to life of her under aged daughter. It is also alleged that in September, 2021, when the applicant came at Prayagraj, the complainant alongwith family members visited the house of the applicant at Saraydat where she was given good hospitality and it is further alleged that the applicant embraced the complainant's daughter with love and affection and told her that he would make arrangements for her admission in MBBS and whenever she needed any help, he would help her as a guardian. It is further alleged that applicant tempted the daughter of complainant and got her personal mobile number and they both started speaking to each other by promising a Flat, Mercedes Car. It is further alleged that applicant also asked the daughter of complainant to send her nude pictures. The applicant also forced her to have nude video calls over the mobile phone.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant belongs to a well respected family and is serving as a Director in Nyka Steels Private Limited. The applicant engages in social work and upliftment of the society through 'Nizamuddin Naseerddin Siddique', Charitable Trust, which works for support to poor and helpless persons in the society. The applicant is a member of political party and has also been contested Parliamentary Elections. Further submission is that the impugned FIR lodged by the complainant is based on concocted, false and frivolous allegations and is an extortion and 'honey trap' attempt upon the applicant. The present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR 707 of 2021 registered at Police Station Bycula Mumbai, Maharashtra lodged against the complainant and her daughter on 1.12.2021 under Sections 384, 385, 500, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 66 (E), 67, 67 (A) of I.T.Act at the instance of applicant. Further submission is that due to some monetary dispute between the complainant and her nephew (sister's son), similar allegations of sexual exploitation of complainant's daughter, rape attempt, nude pictures/video have also been made in the FIR No.310 of 2021 lodged by complainant on 1009.2021 in P.S. Cantt, Prayagraj under Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 IPC. The complainant has earlier lodged an FIR against an advocate alleging sexual harassment by the current de-facto complainant. Further submission is that the complainant and her daughter are habitual to extract money from innocent people by levelling sexual harassment. Further submission is that the complainant is a habitual criminal and various FIRs have been registered against the complainant. There are 25 criminal cases registered against the complainant. Further submission is that no offence under the POCSO Act as well as under Section 67 of I.T. Act has been made out against the applicant even accepting the entire prosecution story as it is. Further submission is that the whole crime in question is an attempt to extract money from the applicant and the offence complained off against applicant is punishable with in less then 7 years imprisonment and applicant is ready to furnish reliable sureties. Further submission is that applicant have no criminal antecedent. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation, therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and have submitted that there are sufficient evidence against the applicant. Whatsapp chat is also available in the phone of the victim. The applicant earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12411 of 2021 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 dismissed the same refusing to grant any relief to the applicant. The victim is a minor girl aged bout 16 years and her whole career is likely to be ruined and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the entire material available on record. In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, 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 the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant is hereby refused, consequently, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Ajeet Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.07.16 15:30:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad