Allahabad High Court
Maghraj Alias Peelu vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27623 of 2022
Applicant :- Maghraj Alias Peelu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Suraj Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.214 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376 and 342 IPC, Police Station Munderwa, District Basti, during the pendency of trial.
As per the allegations in the FIR, one Amit Chaudhary is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant on 07.10.2021 at about 5:00 pm with the help of one Vikash Chaudhary.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up at the time of recovery of the victim on 22.01.2022. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party and she has gone to the applicant out of her own sweet will. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically stated that she, on her own, had gone to meet the applicant on 07.10.2021. The applicant is stated to have undertaken court marriage with the victim on 11.10.2021. The only problem erupted between the two was regarding the statement of the applicant that he is a government employee while later on it had come up that he was working in a private firm. Learned counsel has further stated that it is settled by the Apex Court that the physical relationship between any parties, on some false promise, is not an offence. Learned counsel has further stated that the objection of the family members is with respect to the caste of the applicant who belongs to the different strata of the society to the first informant. The applicant is the resident of Moradabad and the victim is the resident of Basti. There is no chance that the applicant would have committed any offence coming on the way from Moradabad to Basti. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has entered into physical relationship with the victim on the false promise, but could not dispute the fact that there are no criminal history of the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Maghraj Alias Peelu, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 IPC.
(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022
Ravi Kant
