Allahabad High Court
Sachin vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14875 of 2021
Applicant :- Sachin
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Sri Sachin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conference and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 451 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that prosecutrix in her both statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that she herself called the applicant at Chauraha of her village and went with the applicant on her own freewill and got marriage solemnized on 26.11.2017 in Arya Samaj Mandir. It is further submitted that from the statement of the prosecutrix none of the ingredients of Section 363 and 366 are made out. It is further submitted that the provision of Section 5/6 POCSO Act are also not attracted to the fact of this case. It is further submitted that the accused has no previous criminal history. He has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.02.2021 and if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but has not controverted the aforesaid facts by filing reply.
In light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the facts of the case and taking into consideration that the prosecutrix and the accused both are belonging to the same community. Even if go by the statement of the girl and her medical reports, it is very clear that she was in love affair with the applicant and solemnized marriage with the applicant. This Court does not go into the age of the accused at present. Looking to the nature of offence, quantum of punishment and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for bail. The contours for grant on bail as enunciated by the Apex Court in recent judgment in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 will also permit this Court to grant bail to the accused.
Let the applicant-Sachin be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 451 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
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.
Order Date :- 2.7.2021
VPS
