Allahabad High Court
Satyaveer vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32067 of 2022
Applicant :- Satyaveer
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Somdev Dixit,Yogendra Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
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.309 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh.
3. As per contents of FIR which has been lodged against unknown persons, the minor daughter of first informant was allegedly enticed away on 10.07.2021.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of the fact that he was in a consensual relationship with the prosecutrix who has not supported the allegations as levelled in the FIR in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against the applicant. Attention has also been drawn to the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board indicating the fact that the prosecutrix who had by then attained majority did not wish to live with her parents and in fact has been released in the custody of applicant as per wishes of prosecutrix herself. It is submitted that the prosecutrix and applicant together have a child.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact situation.
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 FIR has been lodged against unknown person with the allegations of enticing away the minor daughter of informant and applicant had subsequently been apprehended but the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Order of Juvenile Justice Board also released the fact that the prosecutrix who had by then attained majority has been released into the custody of applicant as per her own wishes.
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, Satyaveer, 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 :- 20.12.2022
Subodh/-
