Saurabh Singh vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 14523 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2349 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Saurabh Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitesh Pratap Malik,Pankaj Kumar Awasthi
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

List revised. None appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2, despite the names of Shri Nitesh Pratap Malik and Shri Pankaj Kumar Awasthi, Advocates is printed in the cause list and despite counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, which is on the record. It appears that neither the opposite party No. 2 nor his counsel are interested to contest the case, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed with the matter for final hearing.

Pleadings are complete and have already been exchanged between the parties. The case is ripe up for hearing.

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Hari Om Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Saurabh Singh, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 330 of 2019, under Sections 420, 376, 306 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case along with his mother due to village rivalry and partibandi. On the date of incident neither the applicant was present, nor he is involved in the alleged crime. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, took place. There is no independent witness of the crime to support the prosecution case.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant who is grand father of the victim, who has filed a short counter affidavit dated 30.09.2022, which is on the record, and in the said short counter affidavit in paras-3 and 4 it has been stated on behalf of complainant that at the time of lodging of the first information report the complainant was not aware about the entire facts of the case, that's why, he had also made accused to the applicant and his mother in the first information report due to misguidance of the villagers. Later on when the complainant came to know that applicant and his mother have not committed any offence and only co-accused, Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh are guilty then he narrated the actual facts to the Investigating Officer, but despite this fact, the Investigating Officer in connivance with the actual culprits, i.e., Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh, submitted a false charge sheet against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of complainant, i.e., P.W.1 has also been recorded before the court below on 22.02.2021 wherein he has stated that applicant and his mother are innocent and the main culprits behind the offence are Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh, initially he had lodged the F.I.R. naming the applicant and his mother on the information given by the villagers, but when he got knowledge of correct facts he narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer by filing an affidavit, but the Investigating Officer in connivance with the Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh to save them had dropped their names and has implicated the applicant and his mother falsely and filed charge sheet against them. Copy of statement of complainant has been filed as Annexure-R.A.-1 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 15.03.2021, which is on the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the same statement was given by P.W.2 before the court below on 08.03.2021, who is father of the victim by stating that on wrong information and misguidance earlier he had taken the names of applicant and his mother, but later on he got correct knowledge that main culprits behind the offence are Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh, but the Investigating Officer had dropped theirs names and filed charge sheet against the applicant and his mother.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of above statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 recorded before the court below, both the witnesses have become hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that main culprits namely, Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh have been exonerated by the Investigating Agency and on their instance charge sheet has been filed totally in a mechanical manner, but now the correct facts have been brought in the knowledge of court below by the witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, thus bail application of applicant may be considered sympathetically and he should be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.01.2020 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that ratio of law applicable in above those cases is also applicable in the case of the applicant, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 12.01.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering the fact that statement of complainant, i.e., P.W.1 has also been recorded before the court below on 22.02.2021 wherein he has stated that applicant and his mother are innocent and the main culprits behind the offence are Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh, initially he had lodged the F.I.R. naming the applicant and his mother on the information given by the villagers, but when he got knowledge of correct facts he narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer by filing an affidavit, but the Investigating Officer in connivance with the Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh to save them had dropped their names and has implicated the applicant and his mother falsely and filed charge sheet against them; in his statement P.W.2 before the court below on 08.03.2021, who is father of the victim has stated that on wrong information and misguidance earlier he had taken the names of applicant and his mother, but later on he got correct knowledge that main culprits behind the offence are Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh, but the Investigating Officer had dropped theirs names and filed charge sheet against the applicant and his mother, thus in view of above statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 recorded before the court below, both the witnesses have become hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case; there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that main culprits namely, Shubham Singh and Prinshu Singh have been exonerated by the Investigating Agency and on their instance charge sheet has been filed totally in a mechanical manner, but now the correct facts have been brought in the knowledge of court below by the witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, thus bail application of applicant may be considered sympathetically and he should be enlarged on bail; the applicant has by now done substantial period of detention; as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal (supra), Takht Singh (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Saurabh Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 330 of 2019, under Sections 420, 376, 306 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 20.10.2022

Mustaqeem