Allahabad High Court
Harsh @ Sonu vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24410 of 2022
Applicant :- Harsh @ Sonu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Chauhan
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of informant is taken on record.
1A. 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. 109 of 2022 under Sections 376, 506 IPC & Section 67-A I.T. Act, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh.
3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant came into contact with the informant while working in Jan Sewa Sampark Kendra in the village and on the pretext of helping her, raped her and made a video which he subsequently put on social net work. Blackmailing for the purposes of sexual gratification has also been made.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that the parties in fact were in a consensual relationship. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. will make it evident that the allegations are quite improbable. It has been further submitted that although allegation of making a video and putting it on the social medial has been made but during course of investigation, no such video was found on the internet and the charge sheet has been submitted only on the basis of a video in a pen drive which even otherwise was given to the police by the informant herself. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28th March, 2022 and as yet trial has not commenced.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that a perusal of the case diary clearly makes it evident that an obscene video of the informant was available on pen drive in which the applicant himself can be seen. It is further submitted that the informant in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly corroborated the allegations levelled in F.I.R.
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 and taking of obscene video for the purposes of blackmailing and subsequent exhibiting them on social media have been made but even as per the F.I.R., the pen drive containing the alleged obscene video has been handed over to the police by the informant herself. The relevant portion of the case diary pertaining to video does not appear to corroborate the allegations made in the F.I.R. Even otherwise at this stage there does not appear to be any evidence indicating that the said video was ever exhibited on the social media. The applicant is in jail since 28th March, 2022 and as yet trial has not commenced.
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 Harsh @ Sonu 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.
11. It is expected that the trial pertaining to crime against women shall be decided expeditiously.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022
Prabhat
