Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sakina vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7009 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Sakina
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. 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.178 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C., Police Station - Katra Bazar, District - Gonda.
3. As per contents of first information report, the incident said to have occurred on 17.05.2021 at about 2.00 p.m. when the applicant is said to have lured away the minor daughter of complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and she has no role in the alleged crime. It is submitted that even from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the story made out against the applicant is highly improbable particularly when the applicant and the complainant are resident of the same village but said to have some previous enmity due to political consideration. It is also submitted that even as per the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim is said to have been travelled from Bahraich to Lucknow and onwards to Chandigarh on public transport but it is in conceivable that she would not raise any hue and cry with regard to abduction on the way.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the bail application with the submission that statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborate the allegations made in the first information report.
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. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, story as narrated by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not fully support the contents of FIR.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant -Smt. Sakina, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law.
(Manish Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 30.6.2022
KR
