Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5615 of 2021 Applicant :- Vikash Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 08.02.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO), Aligarh, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 506, 376 of I.P.C. and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that First Information Report was lodged after about five months from the alleged date of incidence. It is further contended that due to rivalry between father of the victim and the applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant and invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is at Page No. 36, Annexure- 6 to the affidavit to the application, in which age of the victim has been shown as 13 years and she has categorically made statement that the applicant had molested her. It is further contended that charge-sheet has been filed after investigation in the aforesaid matter.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, as well as perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and as the investigation has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed before the court below, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.
Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 31.5.2021 V.S.Singh