Allahabad High Court
Saurabh Pal @ Abhishek Kumar Pal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary, ... on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1117 of 2022
Applicant :- Saurabh Pal @ Abhishek Kumar Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary, Home Department
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 09.11.2021 in Case Crime No.261 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506 & 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Tadiyava, District-Hardoi.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).
The attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the applicant of this Court towards F.I.R. wherein the prosecutrix has herself stated that she was in love affairs with the present applicant for the last two years and on the pretext of false promise of marriage he has established physical relation with her on 13.06.2020.
As per Sri Verma for the incidence dated 13.06.2020 the F.I.R. was lodged on 18.06.2020 and there is no explanation of such delay.
Sri Verma has further submitted that even if the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section164 Cr.P.C. is considered on its face value, even then, the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. is not made out.
Sri Verma has drawn attention of this Court towards para-18 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2019 (@SLP (Crl.) No.2712 of 2019); Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & another, which reads as under:-
"18. To summarize the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."
Sri Verma has submitted that in the present case the physical relation was not established only on the basis of promise of marriage but the present applicant and the prosecutrix were allegedly in love affairs for the last two years, therefore in such circumstances, the offence of rape may not be said to be made out. The charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no apprehension of absconding the present applicant or tampering with the evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.
Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant-Saurabh Pal @ Abhishek Kumar Pal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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.
(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
Order Date :- 1.4.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Suresh/
