Allahabad High Court
Lala Ram vs State Of U.P And 3 Others on 13 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21364 of 2022
Applicant :- Lala Ram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Tiwari
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. As per office report dated 18th June, 2022 the informant has already been served and despite name of learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 17 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 328, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4(2) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Khanna, District Mahoba.
3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant allegedly enticed away the minor daughter of informant on 25th February, 2022 along with co-accused. It is stated that while searching for his daughter, she was found in the company of applicant, who ran away from the scene while threatening the first informant and family members.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact the alleged victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not made any allegations with regard to rape having been committed upon her by the applicant. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the statements of victim with the contents of F.I.R. with regard to incident as narrated. It is submitted that applicant is in jail since 25th March, 2022 with trial at its inception.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with submission that statement of victim clearly corroborates the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and make out a cognizable offence.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that although allegations of enticing away minor have been levelled against the applicant but there are no allegations of any rape having been committed upon her by applicant in the statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and any such allegations even otherwise do not appear to be corroborated by medical report. The applicant is in custody since 25th March, 2022 with trial only at its inception.
7. 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."
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 Lala Ram 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 :- 13.12.2022
Prabhat
