Allahabad High Court
Daud vs State Of U.P. on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47340 of 2022
Applicant :- Daud
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
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. 497 of 2022 under Sections 452, 376 IPC, P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra.
3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 17th August, 2022 at about 11.00 A.M. when the applicant is said to have barged into the house of the applicant and raped his wife.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that in fact the applicant and the prosecutrix were in a consensusal relationship which would be evident from the fact that as per medical report, there is no external injury on the prosecutrix. It is submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged only when the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix came unexpectedly. It is submitted that in the matter only charge sheet has yet been filed.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that prosecutrix has clearly supported the contents of F.I.R. in his statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. although investigation is still continuing and charge sheet has not been filed.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that although allegations of rape have been levelled in the F.I.R. but there appears to be certain contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. There also does not appear to be any external body injury on the prosecutrix as per medical report.
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 Daud 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 :- 3.11.2022
Prabhat
