Allahabad High Court
Altaf Khan vs State Of U.P.And 3 Others on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25843 of 2022
Applicant :- Altaf Khan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1.Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned A.G.A. today, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
3. Despite Notice having been issued to the respondent no. 2. as per office report dated 01.08.2022, the said respondent also having been served personally but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
4. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 47 of 2020 under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, P.S. Kuthaund, district Jalaun.
5. As per contents of First Information Report, the applicant along with co-accused is said to have molested the minor sister-in-law of the informant.
6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated the charges levelled against him as a result of earlier enmity between the parties due to the applicant being neighbour of the first informant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the informant had earlier also lodged F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 48 of 2020, under sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. which clearly indicates that there was previous enmity between the parties. It is submitted that even otherwise there is material contradiction in the statements of the alleged victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 30.05.2020.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that a perusal of F.I.R. clearly makes out a cognizable offence against applicant.
8. 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."
9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it appears that the case of molestation has been registered against the applicant by the informant who had earlier also lodged F.I.R. against him and the matter pertaining to the case of alleged molestation necessarily is required to be established in the trial upon consideration of the evidence. However, considering the gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant Altaf Khan, 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 :- 29.8.2022
Neetu
