Allahabad High Court
Ashu Alias Jitendra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28454 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 511 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashu Alias Jitendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.153 of 2024, under Sections 363, 511 I.P.C., and 7/8 POCSO Act, and 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Shayana, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of the trial.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is false and baseless and not supported by any documents. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The victim is minor and the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is supporting the prosecution story. The I.O. has recovered the evidence of CCTV footage and submitted charge sheet. It is not a case of false implication. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.
5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.
6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The victim is minor and I.O. has submitted charge sheet. The victim has supported the prosecution story. No interference is warranted by this Court.
7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
9. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.
10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Meenu Singh