Laxman vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 10719 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1569 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Laxman
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Vikram Singh,Vinod Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Singh,learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned AGA and perused the record.

The applicant, Laxman, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 289 of 2020 , under Sections 376,323,504,506 IPC and section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Inayat Nagar District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village party bandi and enmity. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. The entire prosecution story has been levelled against the applicant only with the intention to defame the image of the applicant and his entire family in the society.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the present FIR was lodged by the victim herself under sections 354, 323,504,506 IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act against three persons namely Jasomati, Laxman (present applicant) and Bandana on 12.5.2020 alleging therein that on 11.05.2020 the present applicant caught hold the victim with the intention to molestate her. On objection being raised by her, the present applicant slapped her.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Jasomati who is named in the present FIR had also lodged FIR against father, mother and other family member of the victim under sections 147, 323,504 506 IPC and section 3 (1) (Dha), S.C./S.T. Act on the same day i.e. 12.5.2020 regarding the incident dated 11.5.2020. He submits that it is a counter blast Case. The incident was earlier happened with Jasomati and later on the allegation was levelled against the applicant, Jasomati and Bandana in the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of catching her hold from behind and slapping her. She has not made any allegation of molestation or committing rape by the applicant whereas in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C she took somersault and changed her version levelling allegation of fingering in her private part by the applicant but she has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant. In the medical report of the victim, the doctor opined that no definite opinion about recent sexual assault can be given.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is vast contradiction in the FIR and the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Thus the present FIR is false and fabricated.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.07.2020 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 03.07.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that the applicant has committed heinous crime, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering that there is vast contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and FIR and the doctor has not given opinion regarding sexual assault and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Laxman, involved in Case Crime No. 289 of 2020 , under Sections 376,323,504,506 IPC and section 3/4 of the Protection of children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Inayat Nagar District Faizabad/Ayodhya be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 22.8.2022

GSY