Allahabad High Court
Milind Parmar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19336 of 2021
Applicant :- Milind Parmar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Srivastava
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pawan Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Milind Parmar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2021, under Sections 354-B I.P.C., and Section 9Da/10 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kamala Nagar, District- Agra during pendency of trial.
The brief facts of the F.I.R. is that on 21.02.2021 the informant along-with the wife and his daughter (victim) aged about 9 years has gone for hair cut in the shop of the applicant and left her daughter and went to V mart and taking his daughter came at home and the daughter has told to her mother that the applicant has misbehaved with her and threat to kill her if she told some one. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the applicant has asked money for the cutting of the hair and massage and some hard talk has been taken between the applicant and the complainant and the conclusion is the present case. The F.I.R. has not been disclosed any time of the incident. It is further submitted that the concern police has taken away the applicant from the shop on 22.02.2021 at 11:50 A.M. but the first information report has been lodged on 22.02.2021 at 13:37 P.M. in support of his submission he has shown the copy of the CCTV footage, which has been filed by the applicant in supplementary affidavit which is as Annexure SA No.-2. It has also been submitted that the concern police has been showing the arrest of the applicant on 23.02.2021 from other place. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next contended that no offence is made out against the applicant under Section 354-B I.P.C. and Section 9Ang/10 POCSO Act. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 22.03.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of 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, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let applicant Milind Parmar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021
Ishan
