Allahabad High Court
Deepak Ram vs State Of U.P. on 24 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11241 of 2019
Applicant :- Deepak Ram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudheer Kumar Singh,Abhishek Tiwari,Karma Singh Yadav,Pawan Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Gautam
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.0262 of 2017, under Sections 376(1), 504, 506, IPC, registered at Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh.
3. As per contents of FIR, informant's daughter who was infected with tuberculosis was under going treatment during which it came to light that she was pregnant and upon inquiry indicated the name of applicant as having committed rape upon her.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and he has been nominated because of dispute regarding property. It is submitted that the absurdity of the charges are quite apparent from the fact that pregnancy is said to have been discovered only when the prosecutrix was being treated for tuberculosis. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 03.10.2018 and evidence of all the prosecution witnesses has been completed and therefore there is no occasion now left for the applicant to tamper with the evidence of witnesses.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her deposition during trial has supported the contents of FIR.
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 parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although the prosecutrix has supported the contents of FIR but in the medical examination has been indicated as being of unsound mind. As per submission of learned counsel for applicant, evidence of all the prosecution witnesses has been completed and therefore there does not remain any occasion for the applicant to temper with evidence. The applicant is in jail since 03.10.2018 without any previous criminal history and trial as yet has not concluded.
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, Deepak Ram, 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 :- 24.11.2022
Subodh/-
