High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64131 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6143 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Verma @ Anil Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Mamta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. As per paragraph no.3 of the affidavit of compliance filed by Sub-Inspector, Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur notice of the present application has been served on the informant on 4.7.2024. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4/informant nor any counter affidavit has been filed.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record. 3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.7.2024 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Anil Kumar Verma @ Anil Verma in Case Crime No. 0160 of 2024 under Sections 354, 452 and 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Ramgarhtal, District - Gorakhpur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that earlier wife of the applicant had lodged first information report on 10.2.2024 against the victim. As a counter blast, the present first information report has been lodged against the applicant by Smt. Geeta Devi who is mother of the victim. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the present proceedings are vengeance as the wife of the applicant had earlier lodged first information report. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. 4. Matter requires consideration. 5. As requested, learned AGA is allowed two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. 6. List this case on 23.8.2024. 7. As an interim protection, till the next date fixed for final hearing on this application, the applicant is granted interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office 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 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 concerned. (iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing. 8. 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." 4. Counsel for the applicant contends that pursuant to the order dated 25.7.2024 the applicant had furnished bail bond before the S.H.O. concerned. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the court concerned. It is next contended that the applicant did not act indecently with the daughter of the informant. The maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41-A I.P.C. also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years. 8. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected. 9. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would dis-entitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 11. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order dated 25.7.2024, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants, the fact that no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of interim anticipatory bail has been pointed out by learned AGA, the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 12. In the event of arrest, the applicant Anil Kumar Verma @ Anil Verma involved in Case Crime No.0160 of 2024, under sections 354, 452, 506 I.P.C., and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Ramgarhtal, District Gorakhpur be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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 on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; (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 concerned court. 13. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
Decision
14. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad