Allahabad High Court
Mukul @ Mukul Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19485 of 2021
Applicant :- Mukul @ Mukul Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Pandey,Brajesh Kumar Singh,Devendra Mohan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deena Nath
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Devendra Mohan Singh, 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.168 of 2017, under Sections 363, 365, 366/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.
3. As per contents of FIR, which has been lodged against unknown person, the incident has taken place on 27.06.2017 when the minor daughter of the informant has gone missing. Applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of statement of victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and neither in the FIR nor even in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has any allegation of rape being made against the applicant. It is submitted that the only allegation levelled against the applicant is that he had called alleged victim to Delhi but she went missing when the applicant went to fetch an auto-rickshaw.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the contents of FIR are clearly corroborated by the statements of victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
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 submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the FIR has been lodged against unknown person and applicant's name has been introduced on the basis of statements of victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which the only allegation levelled against him is that of having called her to Delhi whereafter he received at the station but did not return and the victim was thereafter taken away by one Ajay. As such, at this stage there does not appear to be any allegation levelled against the applicant with regard to sections imputed against him although he is in jail since 19.02.2021 and as yet only charges have been framed as per submission of learned counsel for applicant.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Mukul @ Mukul Sharma, 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 :- 12.12.2022
Subodh/-
