Allahabad High Court
Sumit Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 August, 2021
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10156 of 2021 Applicant :- Sumit Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adya Prasad Tewari,Ravi Shankar Tripathi Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
None is present for the informant.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants Sumit Yadav and Sameer in Case Crime No. 587 of 2017, under sections 363, 366, 376D, 506 I.P.C. and section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S.- Ujhani, District - Badaun.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the F.I.R. there is no allegation of rape and it was stated there in that the applicants assaulted her in order to outrage the modesty and abducted her. Further submission is that the investigation was under taken by police and sufficient evidence was not found and therefore, final report was submitted to the court. Thereafter the protest application was filed and the court below examined the victim and other witnesses on oath and summoned the applicants for the aforesaid offence. Submission is that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they themselves informed to the police that the victim is going to commit suicide, no allegation of rape was made in the F.I.R. which makes the whole incident suspicious, therefore, it has been submitted that it is a fit case in which anticipatory bail may be granted. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish surety and bond, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that during investigation also in her statement under section 161 and section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim had made allegation of rape committed by the applicant but for no valid reason the F.R. was submitted the court below adopting the correct legal procedure and entertaining the protest petition recorded the evidence and then summoned the applicants for the aforesaid offence, the offence is of gang rape of a minor girl, in such kind of cases the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be given.
Considering the submissions of both the sides. It is true that some of the facts were not mentioned in the F.I.R. though alleged soon after the incident, it is also true that the Investigating Officer after completing the Investigation did not find the evidence and submitted final report, it is again admitted fact that protest application was given and for persuasion of protest application the evidence of the witnesses and victim was recorded and taking into consideration those statements and also considering the fact that victim in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. given to the I.O. and section 164 Cr.P.C. given to the Magistrate had made allegation that the accused persons committed rape on her, therefore, the learned court below finding sufficient evidence, summoned the applicants for the said offence. The offence for which the applicants have been summoned is an offence of gang rape of a minor child, as such the offence is serious and heinous and if in such case anticipatory application is allowed the purpose of the POCSO Act will certainly frustrate, therefore, I do not find sufficient reason for allowing the anticipatory bail application, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.
A direction is however given to the court below that in case applicants surrender and give bail application, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021 Bhanu