Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37952 of 2019 Applicant :- Ajeet Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim and Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the prosecutrix and absolutely false and frivolous allegations have been made against him of commission of rape. The applicant is a permanent resident of Ahmadabad, Gujarat and it is also alleged by the first informant that illegal demand of dowry was also made by the applicant and other family members. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have raised a preliminary objection that charge-sheet has been laid against the applicant on 5.2.2019 on which cognizance has also been taken and the applicant has been summoned to face trial. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
However, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Choudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77 in which it has been held that mere fact of taking cognizance or filing of charge-sheet is not itself bar in grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present application is maintainable.
In view of the settled law, the present anticipatory bail application is maintainable.
Learned counsel for the informant has raised another objection that the charge-sheet was challenged by the applicant and other accused in Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.18321 of 2019 (Sujeet Kumar and 05 others Vs. State of U.P. and another), however, the application was finally disposed of in respect of applicant no.1- Sujeet Kumar, husband of the prosecutrix and applicant no.6- Ajeet Prasad (present applicant). They were directed to appear and surrender before the court within 30 days and obtain bail. The said order was passed on 7.5.2019. The applicants did not comply with the aforesaid order and appear before the courts below and apply for bail. Now, after four and a half months of the said order, anticipatory bail is being sought by the applicant.
In my opinion, it would be appropriate that instead of granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the excise of power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant may approach the court below and file an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court who shall consider the entire evidence collected during investigation and the role played by the applicant and decide the case on merits.
In the light of aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in view of the fact that charge-sheet has been laid and the allegation against the applicant is of commission of rape on the prosecutrix, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant- Ajeet Prasad involved in Case Crime No. 028 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 376, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Varanasi.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Vikas