Allahabad High Court
Amaresh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- BAIL No. - 3219 of 2021
Applicant :- Amaresh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Shashi Kant Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 Pandemic and perused the record.
Earlier learned AGA had been granted time to file counter affidavit, which however has not yet been filed. Vide order dated 16.06.2021, it was directed that no further time would be granted for filing of counter affidavit and on the next date of listing, the matter would be heard solely on the basis of material available on record. Counter affidavit has not yet been filed.
First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.566 of 2020, under Section 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him in the impugned first information report. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when compared to her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the medical report with the submission that the same indicates that there is not external injury upon the prosecutrix and that in the pathological report for vaginal smear, no spermatozoa is visible. It is submitted that the same clearly indicates that the charges levelled against the applicant is fabricated. It has been stated that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history and has been in jail since 13.01.2021 although the trial has not yet commenced due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed the bail application with the submission that there is no contradiction in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which in fact corroborates the charges levelled in the FIR.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Amaresh Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021
Subodh/-
