Allahabad High Court
Parvez vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?.Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9841 of 2022
Applicant :- Parvez
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap,Anurag Yadav,Sukrampal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 02.05.2022, notices have been served upon informant but no-one has put in appearance on their behalf.
1A. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2.This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.743 of 2021 under Sections 420, 406, 354B, 323, 504, 506, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5L/6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Nandgram, District Ghaziabad.
3. As per contents of first information report, applicant along with co-accused is said to have defrauded the informant to the tune of Rs.13 lakh on the pretext of performing some religious ceremonies for the purposes of obtaining gold. Allegation has been levelled that for the conduct of such ceremony, the minor daughter of informant was forced to sit naked.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of monetary dispute pertaining to purchase of buffaloes by the informant from applicant. It is submitted that there is major contradiction in the statements of alleged victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Attention has also been drawn to continuous notices being issued by the Investigating Officer for conduct of medical examination of prosecutrix to which she is not responding. As such, it is submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicant who is in jail since 11.08.2021 with only charge sheet having been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that the victim has clearly supported the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the additional statement recorded by her. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has already been filed.
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 submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although allegations of defrauding the informant and pertaining to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act have been levelled but there are certain contradictions in statements of alleged victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The documents on record also indicates notices being sent to alleged victim by the Investigating Officer for conduct of medical examination to which she is not responding. The applicant is in jail since 11.08.2021 with only charge sheet having been filed till date. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Parvez, 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 :- 2.12.2022
kvg/-
