Allahabad High Court
Naseem @ Chhotu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18461 of 2022
Applicant :- Naseem @ Chhotu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh Yadav,Dilnawaz Ahmad Khan,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Vishwakarma,Saumya Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavits on behalf of applicant and counter affidavit on behalf of State have been taken on record.
1A. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant, Ms. Saumya Srivastava, learned counsel for Child Welfare Committee, opposite party no.3 and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.230 of 2021 under Sections 376-D, 452, 506 I.P.C., Section 5/6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Chandwak, District Jaunpur.
3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 06.09.2021 when applicant along with co-accused and another unidentified person is said to have waylaid the informant/prosecutrix and are said to have committed rape upon her while making a video of the entire incident with which she was allegedly blackmailed.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that prosecutrix herself upon being examined as P.W. 1 while corroborating the incident with regard to co-accused, has clearly stated that the applicant was not involved in the incident and his name has been unnecessarily dragged into the matter.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant and Ms. Saumya Srivastava, learned counsel for Child Welfare Committee, opposite party no.3 have opposed the bail application but did not dispute the fact situation.
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 although the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. as well as in the subsequent statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but upon being examined during the course of trial as P.W. 1 has denied the involvement of the applicant in the incident which she has corroborated with regard to co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 15.10.2021 and charge sheet with regard to applicant has already been filed. 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 Naseem @ Chhotu, 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 :- 29.11.2022
kvg/-
