JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicant has shown his apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 240 of 2021 u/s 147, 323, 354, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., P.S, Shadiyabad, District Ghazipur.

3. The attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the present applicant is not named and no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been leveled against him. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that having ulterior motive and extraneous design in her mind the informant has deliberately and intentionally not named the present applicant in the F.I.R. as she has stated herself as wife of the present applicant. At the time of lodging of F.I.R. she has given impression that she is wife of the present applicant.

4. The present applicant is an Army personnel serving in Indian Army, presently posted at Line of Control, China Border. He has got married with one Priya Yadav as certificate of marriage to that effect has been enclosed with the application as Annexure no. 4.

5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the present applicant is not married to the informant/complainant. Since the informant/complainant is not married wife of the applicant, therefore, she could have not entered into the house of the present applicant in his absence showing herself as his wife when his family members were fully aware that he is married to Priya Yadav.

6. However, while recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., as per para 10 of the anticipatory bail rejection order passed by the learned court below, the complainant/informant has stated that she was having affair with present applicant since long and they got married in one temple.

7. Sri Yadav has submitted that no credible evidence has been provided to the investigating officer by the informant/complainant and the investigation is still going on.

8. The present applicant is posted at Line of Control, China Border and he could not know about any investigation being pending. As a matter of fact no summon to cooperate with the investigation is served upon the applicant nor any bailable or non-bailable warrant has been served upon the present applicant to cooperate with the investigation.

9. This Court in re: Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. in Case No. 5195 of 2021 vide order dated 10.12.2021 was pleased to set aside the proclamation issued u/s 82 Cr.P.C. for the reason that before seeking proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. the investigating officer has not taken prior steps and has not filed such application before the learned court below on affidavit. Therefore, in the aforesaid case the direction was issued to Director General of Police, U.P. to issue appropriate circular fixing guidelines to the effect that the investigating officer shall file affidavit before the court concerned apprising that he has taken all necessary steps seeking cooperation of the accused but the accused is not cooperating with the investigation.

10. In the present case no such affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer and no material was shown to the court-below to convince that before issuing proclamation all prior necessary measures have been adopted by the Investigating officer concerned.

11. The Apex Court in re: Inder Mohan Goswami & another vs. State of Uttaranchal & others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 has held that coercive process i.e. N.B.W. should not be issued lightly and it is incumbent upon the Court to verify such fact as to whether all prior necessory steps have been taken by the investigating officer or not. Therefore, as per Sri Yadav unless the prior necessary steps, so prescribed under the Cr.P.C., have not been taken by the investigating officer, the proclamation u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. should not have been issued. The relevant paras of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) are being reproduced herein below :

51. The issuan