In Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant - Vidya Sagar in connection with Case No.422 of 2024 (State Vs. Vidya Sagar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.80 of 2023, under Sections 354(C), 384, 504, 506, 376 IPC, Sections 66E, 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 4/6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj seeking anticipatory bail during the pendency of trial.

3. The present applicant used to make indecent chat with the victim of this case by way of threatening and blackmailing her on the basis of some alleged obscene videos and photograph relating to the victim and he also grabbed some money from the victim by way of blackmailing, when the matter was disclosed by the victim to her husband and he protested, he was threatened by the applicant for life but his mobile phone was snatched by the family members of the victim. F.I.R. was lodged on 22.2.2023 and investigation started and now the charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged incident. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence, as alleged in the F.I.R. and in the charge-sheet, are lacking in this matter. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant till the submission of police report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 13696 of 2023 by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 and the said liberty was never misused by the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation and now after filing of the charge-sheet, he has not been declared proclaimed offender. No punitive process has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter of the applicant and he is entitled for bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute the factual aspect, which has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. It reveals from the perusal of the record that charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter and till date no process under section 82 or 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant and he has been cooperative during the course of investigation. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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. Hence, 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, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his 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 make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter; (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 officer; (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.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant - Vidya Sagar in connection with Case No.422 of 2024 (State Vs. Vidya Sagar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.80 of 2023, under Sections 354(C), 384, 504, 506, 376 IPC, Sections 66E, 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 4/6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj seeking anticipatory bail during the pendency of trial.

3. The present applicant used to make indecent chat with the victim of this case by way of threatening and blackmailing her on the basis of some alleged obscene videos and photograph relating to the victim and he also grabbed some money from the victim by way of blackmailing, when the matter was disclosed by the victim to her husband and he protested, he was threatened by the applicant for life but his mobile phone was snatched by the family members of the victim. F.I.R. was lodged on 22.2.2023 and investigation started and now the charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged incident. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence, as alleged in the F.I.R. and in the charge-sheet, are lacking in this matter. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant till the submission of police report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 13696 of 2023 by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 and the said liberty was never misused by the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation and now after filing of the charge-sheet, he has not been declared proclaimed offender. No punitive process has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter of the applicant and he is entitled for bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute the factual aspect, which has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. It reveals from the perusal of the record that charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter and till date no process under section 82 or 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant and he has been cooperative during the course of investigation. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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. Hence, 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, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his 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 make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter; (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 officer; (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.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad