The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of innocence, lack of criminal history, and willingness to participate in the investigation in granting anticipatory bail in serious offences.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - IPC 452, 354-Kha, 504, 506 and POCSO Act, Section 7/8 - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant Farukh in Case Crime No. 235 of 2020 under the mentioned sections. The court considered the applicant's innocence and lack of criminal history, and also referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, in granting the bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Farukh, filed an Anticipatory Bail Application after being accused in Case Crime No. 235 of 2020 under various sections of the IPC and POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant was not required for custodial interrogation, had no criminal history, and was willing to participate in the investigation. The court also considered the law regarding grant of anticipatory bail in serious offences and found the ground for grant of anticipatory bail to be made out.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act, and the consideration of the applicant's innocence and lack of criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the applicant's innocence, lack of criminal history, and willingness to participate in the investigation, as well as the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in serious offences and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Anticipatory Bail Application and directed the applicant to be enlarged on anticipatory bail with certain conditions, and instructed the Investigating Officer to continue with the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Farukh in Case Crime No. 235 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2021), under Sections 452, 354-Kha, 504, 506, IPC and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station -Kotwali, District -Pilibhit after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit vide order dated 2.3.2022.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged by the mother of the victim against the applicant and two wives of the applicant alleging that on 21.5.2020 at 2.00 p.m. when her minor daughter, aged about 15 years, was sitting in her grocery shop, applicant caught hold her minor daughter and molested her. On her crying she reached there and the applicant fled away at his house. After that she went to the house of the applicant for making complaint, then his two wives namely Smt. Minakshi and Smt. Shahnaz abused her by using filthy language. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after 43 days of the incident. It is further argued that in the month of 2020, some hot talk took place between the applicant and first informant over the drainage issue. First informant was neighbour of the present applicant and at that time first informant threatened the applicant to implicate him in a false case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court till the submission of charge sheet vide order dated 1.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8315 of 2020. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted in the present matter.

4. The applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. It is further contended that the applicant is ready to participate in the investigation. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 22.04.2022.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant, however, nothing adverse has been pointed out against the applicant.

6. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3), Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

7. It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

9. In case of arrest, the applicant Farukh is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-and two sure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document