Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7342 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nitesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal in Case Crime No. 416 of 2018, under sections 354, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Deoria, District Deoria.
The FIR version is that the incident took place on 25.01.2018 in respect of which FIR was lodged on 17.05.2018 with the allegation that the accused who is a doctor gave some intoxicant in the water and after taking water she got unconscious and during her unconsciousness the accused sexually abused her. She was taken to the hospital and after two hours she became conscious. Later on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she supported her version of FIR and also made allegation that rape was committed by the accused on her. When she went back to the clinic, the accused started asking for excuses and he will not further repeat. When she denied, the accused gave her threatening even, thereafter, the accused continued with his activity of sexually abused, therefore, the FIR was lodged by him.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR is grossly delayed and initially in the FIR there was no allegation of rape and, therefore, the statement with regard to commission of rape in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is an afterthought. On this basis, a prima facie case for anticipatory bail is made out and he deserves to be released on bail. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of her 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 after investigation charge sheet has also been filed and when charge sheet has been filed there remains no scope for alleging that there is a false implication or there is no case against him of the said offence. It has been further submitted that in such situation, an anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. The applicant may avail opportunity of regular bail before the appropriate forum.
Considering the submissions of both the sides, it appears that the charge sheet dated 4.8.2018 has been filed before the court and on 30.8.2018 the court below after perusing the case diary has taken cognizance over it. It means that almost three years have passed and till now the appellant has not been arrested. It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused. The applicant has not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances, as such, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.
Regular bail application may be given before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Mini