Allahabad High Court
Sachin Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 2 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107286 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17367 of 2024 Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Yadav,Shitlesh Pandey,Shivendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Misra,G.A.,Santosh Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akash Misra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.62 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 313, 328 I.P.C., Police Station- Sen Pashchim Para, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have employed the victim in his shop and established physical relationship with her by spiking her drink and kept on entering into corporeal relationship with her on the pretext that he shall marry her and had concealed the fact that he is married. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have told the victim that he shall soon get divorce from his earlier wife and shall marry her subsequently. The applicant is even stated to have aborted her fetus several times, as such the instant FIR has been instituted.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and victim were having physical relationship out of marriage. The victim is a married lady as is evident from Annexure-5 which is a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the victim against her erstwhile husband. Both the parties have siblings of their own. The case does not fall within the category of rape. The case, if any, may fall within the category of adultery and the same has been quashed by the Supreme Court.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that in all three FIRs have been instituted against the applicant by the same informant. One was registered as Case Crime No.166 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323 I.P.C. at Police Station Naubasta, District South (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar) and another has been subsequently instituted against the applicant and other family members as Case Crime No.284 of 2024, under Sections 67 I.T. Act and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Hanumant Vihar, District South (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar). Learned counsel has stated that the victim hell bent on keeping the applicant behind the bars. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the said cases instituted by one and the same informant.
7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.2.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that applicant is not entitled for bail as he has misused his clout and established physical relationship with the victim.
10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
11. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that both the parties are married persons, as such allegation of marrying the victim does not arise coupled with the fact that there are several FIRs instituted by the same informant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant- Sachin Kumar Sharma involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
15. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024/ Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)