Rijvan v. State of U.P

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 13230 of 2023, under Sections 376-D, 395 I.P.C., Police Station Jhinjhina, District Shamli, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that false allegation has been made in the F.I.R. that applicant along with other accused that they committed robbery and committed rape upon the daughter of the informant. No such incident took place. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has been implicated in the case due to village rivalry. After lodging of the F.I.R. the police investigated the matter and forwarded final report, whereupon protest petition was filed which was registered as complaint case. Learned counsel further submits that there is apprehension that applicant may be arrested in the above mentioned case whereas there is no credible evidence against him to connect with the crime, therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He undertakes to cooperate with the proceeding of trial.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that after protest was filed the court concerned registered the same as complaint case and the applicant was summoned and no appearance of applicant before the court concerned proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has also been issued against the applicant, therefore, there is no occasion to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, thus, the present anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.

Considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Since, applicant is not cooperating with the trial, therefore, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.