Allahabad High Court
Ravi Rajput vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32577 of 2022
Applicant :- Ravi Rajput
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manu Mishra
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.101 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh.
3. As per contents of first information report,the applicant is said to have enticed away the minor daughter of informant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him as would be evident from the statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has clearly stated that she was major in age and was in a consensual relationship with applicant with whom she has also contracted marriage. Learned counsel for informant has drawn attention to the radiological medical examination report indicating age of prosecutrix as about 18 years. It is submitted that the alleged School Certificate indicating date of birth of prosecutrix as 12.07.2006 does not contain any date and is not a credible evidence and as such would require corroboration by evidence during trial. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.05.2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that as per the School Certificate, the age of prosecutrix is 16 years and as such her consent is of no avail.
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 prosecutrix has not supported the contents of F.I.R. in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and has specifically indicated that she is major in age, a fact that appears to be corroborated by medical certificate. As such, the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School concerned, would require corroboration by evidence during trial. The applicant is in jail since 07.05.2022 and is young of age and as yet only charge sheet has been filed in the matter. 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 Ravi Rajput, 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 :- 23.11.2022
kvg/-
