High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168880 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9471 of 2023 Applicant :- Vivek Verma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Yadav,Balbir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by shri M.P. Yadav, Advocate on behalf of the informant is taken on record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Vivek Verma and Aarti seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0374 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the applicants are brother and sister of the main accused Vipin Kumar Verma. In the F.I.R. no allegation of rape has been alleged against the applicant no.1. In her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC the prosecutrix has also not alleged the offence of rape against the applicant no.1 and only on account of being the brother and sister of the main accused, the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. The applicants are cooperating with the investigation. Applicants have no criminal history to their credit. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute this factual aspect that the offence of sexual exploitation with the victim was committed by the main accused Vipin Kumar Verma. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It reveals from the perusal of the record that the marriage of the prosecutrix was settled with the main accused Vipin Kumer Verma and with the consent of his family members including the present applicants, who are his brother and sister, and taking benefit of the relation, the main accused Vipin Kumar Verma committed rape many times with the victim of the case but subsequently the marriage was denied by all the accused persons and F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that applicant no.2 is a lady and she has nothing to do with the offence of rape and the applicant no.1, who is brother of the main accused, is also not indulged in the commission of the offence of rape. Applicants are cooperating with the investigation. 8. 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, 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. 9. 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. 10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court. 11. The application is allowed accordingly. 12. In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions :- 1. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 2. 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 or tamper with the evidence. 3. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 5. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.8.2023 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad