Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- BAIL No. - 1162 of 2020
Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Agnihotri,Ram Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. 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. Notice had earlier been issued to complainant/opposite party no.2. As per office report dated 05.03.2020, notices have been served upon opposite party no.2 but no-one has put in appearance on his behalf till date.
2. This first Bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0457/2019, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Tadiyawan,District Hardoi.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to order dated 05.02.2020 passed by this Court whereby it was directed that the case should be listed after the statement of prosecutrix was recorded in the Court. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in pursuance thereof, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded in Court, which has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him in the first information report. He has drawn attention to medical report indicating the fact that medico-legal examination was conducted upon prosecutrix on 04.10.2019 and is on record as Annexure no.3. It is submitted that the report clearly indicates the final opinion that there are no signs suggestive of recent penetration of the vagina. Radiological age of the prosecutrix is indicated as 16 years. He has also drawn attention to deposition of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which it has been stated that there was no injury on body of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that even a perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix made in court does not corroborate the allegations levelled against applicant. It is submitted that since statement of the prosecutrix has already been completed and the trial is progressing in which applicant is participating, as such, there is no possibility now of the applicant tampering with evidence or witnesess or even of absconding.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with submission that not only are the allegations levelled in the first information report clearly borne out with regard to the offence but the depositions of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned in trial have corroborated the allegations levelled against applicant. It is, however, admitted that evidence of the prosecutrix has come to an end.
6. 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."
7. Considering the material on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that as on date the deposition of the prosecutrix has already ended and the trial is progressing in which applicant is also participating, the fact that medico-legal report seems to be in variation with allegations levelled in the first information report is a matter requiring consideration and would definitely be dealt with by the trial court, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, prima facie, this Court finds the applicant entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant, Ajeet Kumar 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 :- 29.6.2021
kvg/-
