Allahabad High Court
Rinku Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35214 of 2022
Applicant :- Rinku Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra,Anand Mohan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. As per office report dated 14.10.2022, the informant has been served through mother but no one has put in appearance on her behalf.
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.206 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506, 120B IPC, Section 5Kha/5TA/6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 66E/ 67 of Information of Technology Act, registered at Police Station Kishanpur, District Fatehpur.
3. As per contents of FIR, allegation has been levelled against the applicant of having sexually molested the minor sister of informant. It is stated that the applicant thereafter made a video of the incident and used to blackmail her.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is further submitted that FIR does not indicate any time or place or date of the alleged incident and only general allegations have been levelled. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to submit that the allegations levelled against the applicant and co-accused are extremely improbable in nature. It is also submitted that the medical report does not corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant who is in jail since 29.12.2021 without trial having yet commenced. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the statement of prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborates the allegations levelled in the FIR and that even as per medical report, there are four internal injuries on the prosecutrix.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that general allegations of rape has been levelled against the applicant in the FIR without indicating any date time or place of the said incident. Although, it has been stated that the videography of the incident was done by the applicant but instructions of learned AGA do not indicate any such factor. The medical examination also does not indicate any external injury present in the prosecutrix at the time of examination. At this stage, there does not appear to be any credible evidence against the applicant except for the allegations levelled. The applicant is in jail since 29.12.2021 and as yet trial has not commenced.
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, Rinku 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 :- 1.11.2022
Subodh/-
