Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28871 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. C.P. Upadhyay,Arvind Singh Sengar
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.0182 of 2022 under Sections 376,323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. George Town, District Prayagraj.
3. As per contents of first information report, the applicant has allegedly sexually exploited informant's daughter on the false pretext of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact the parties were in a consensual relationship. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has entered into relationship with applicant with her own freewill without any false promise or coercion and, therefore would not fall within definition of exploitation with intent of false promise and would in fact be a case of breach of promise. It is submitted that applicant is in jail since 26.05.2022 and charge sheet has been filed without trial having commenced. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that exploitation of the victim on false pretext of marriage is clearly made out from statements of victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
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 the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that parties were in a consensual relationship as would be evident from not only a perusal of F.I.R. but also from statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The aspect of relationship between the two as a result of promise which was intentionally false at the time of inception or breach of promise subsequently would require to be established by evidence during trial and no comment thereupon can be made at this stage. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2022 and does not have any previous criminal history. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Rahul Kumar Singh, 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
kvg/-
