Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43317 of 2022
Applicant :- Pramod Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Seema Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.48 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Section 16/17 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Marhara, District Etah.
3. As per contents of FIR, one Somendra allegedly enticed away the minor daughter of informant on 28.03.2022.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and he has not been named in the FIR. It is submitted that applicant had been introduced only in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and that too only having the role of having provided accommodation to co-accused Somendra. It is submitted that in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., there is material contradiction since she subsequently states that she was not aware of the name of the person who has provided accommodation although he has been specifically named in statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that applicant even otherwise as per statement of the prosecutrix is coming within preview of section 120-B IPC.
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 applicant has not been nominated in the FIR and his name has been introduced in the statement of prosecutrix under section 161 Cr.P.C. with a limited role of having provided accommodation to the co-accused Somendra. It does not appear from the statement of prosecutrix that the applicant was aware of alleged abduction of prosecutrix and as such the main thrust of allegation is on the nominated person Somendra and therefore the role of applicant is quite distinguishable.
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, Pramod Kumar, 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 :- 14.12.2022
Subodh/-
