- In the case of Yogendra Kumar Mishra vs State of UP and anr the Allahabad HC has denied bail to a POCSO accused who had allegedly raped a minor girl and her mother, and has also observed that an absconder or a proclaimed offender is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
- In the present case, the accused had been booked under sections 376 and 328 IPC, 3/4 POCSO and 67 IT Act for allegedly raping a minor girl and her mother, who is the complainant in the case.
- The defence had argued that the accused and the complainant were in a consensual relationship, despite the fact that the accused is a married man and the complainant is separated from her husband. The defence had also argued that the complainant is a teacher in a school where the accused works as a class IV employee. When the informant had asked him to marry her, he refused and the present case was thus lodged out of spite.
- The accused’s anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court, and thus, he had approached the High Court.
- The State had opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by arguing that both the complainant as well as her minor daughter had made a categorical statement under section 164 CrPC that they were raped by the accused multiple times. It was also argued that the accused was not cooperating with the police and a bailable warrant had been issued against him, and proceedings under section 82 and 83 (proclamation and attachment) of CrPC had also been initiated against him, and thus no case of anticipatory bail could be made out.
- The Allahabad HC relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs State of Bihar and anr AIR 2021 SC. It was in this case that the Apex Court had relied upon the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Pradeep Sharma (2014) SCC wherein it was held that if anyone has been declared absconding or a proclaimed offender, he will not be entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
- The Court also referred to the case of Lavesh vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) SCC where the Court had held that where a person against whom a warrant has been issued, is absconding or concealing himself to as to avoid the execution of the same and is declared a proclaimed offender under section 82 CrPC, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
- The Court went into the merits of the case and observed that the applicant inspired the confidence of the complainant and her minor daughter and when they posed complete faith in him, he violated their trust. The averments made in the statements recorded under 164 CrPC also show that the applicant not only raped the complainant, but also her daughter and that he threatened them with a video recording that he has of them, saying that he would make that video viral.
- The Court thus held that if the case is decided on merits, the averments made by the complainant and her daughter are very serious allegations, and in view of the same and the decisions of the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, no case of anticipatory bail is made out.
- Thus, the application was rejected and the applicant was given a two weeks time to surrender before the Trial Court and move an application for regular bail. In case such an application is made, the Trial Court was asked to decide it expeditiously, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI and anr (2021) SCC.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
