The court emphasized the need for a balance between individual liberty and societal interest in granting anticipatory bail, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the accused's antecedents, and the possibility of fleeing from justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pranshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Syed Azizul Hasan Rizvi, learned counsel representing the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi in F.I.R./Crime No.130 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 392 I.P.C., Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of enmity with the husband of the informant/prosecutrix and like persons and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the informant/prosecutrix.

4. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged with a delay of more than five months and six days and the circumstances under which the F.I.R. has been lodged by moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. throws a cloud of suspicion over the whole prosecution story.

5. It is also submitted that there is no medical evidence in support of the allegations of the victim/informant and the allegations as levelled by the prosecutrix/informant could not be believed in the background of the fact that the applicant has been provided with Y-Plus Security cover by the Government in which 16 police personnels always remain posted with the applicant and as such it is impossible for the applicant to commit the offence in the manner alleged by the informant/prosecutrix.

6. It is further submitted that applicant has remained the Chairman of the Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh and having regard to the ideology of the applicant and petitions filed by him in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India certain fundamentalists are against the applicant and they were instrumental in lodging this false F.I.R. against applicant.

7. It is also submitted that due to the ideology of the applicant he was being continuously targeted by a section of society, who are annoyed with the applicant and it is known that the driver of the applicant namely Salman Haider has been won over by his enemies and when he (Salman Haider) became a potential threat to the life and liberty of the applicant, the applicant had discontinued his services as his driver and he had also vacated the accommodation provided by the applicant and in retaliation cooked up a false against the applicant.

8. It is further submitted that after lodging of the first information report, the husband of the informant/prosecutrix had admitted in his talks with one Shri Anjum Askari @ Raju resident of Kashmiri Mohalla, Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow that the instant F.I.R. has been falsely lodged by his wife and the said voice recording has been provided to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow.

9. It is further submitted that the applicant is a respectable citizen and had enjoyed a very high position of Chairman, Shia Waqf Board and arrest of the applicant in this case shall bring a bad name to his otherwise good reputation and would also injure his liberty. There is no requirement of any custodial interrogation as all the formalities pertaining to the investigation has already been completed by the investigating officer and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise be not available for trial.

10. It is also submitted that criminal history of 31 cases is being alleged against the applicant, however, in majority of the cases the applicant has not been charge sheeted or has been acquitted and the criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained in a tabular manner placed as Annexure No.4 to the anticip