Allahabad High Court
Ahevaran vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36831 of 2022
Applicant :- Ahevaran
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh
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.82 of 2022 under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S Kunwargaon, District Badaun.
3. As per contents of first information report, the informant's major daughter is said to have been enticed away by the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that the statements of victim under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C. & as given to doctor during medical examination are at complete variance. It is submitted that in fact there was consensual relationship between the applicant and victim which turned sour due to which F.I.R. has been lodged. It is submitted that even medical examination does not support the contents of F.I.R.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that the statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly supports the allegations made in the F.I.R. and that as far as the applicant is concerned there is no material contradiction in her statement.
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 particularly statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., there appears to be material contradiction in the same, the medical examination although conducted belatedly also does not appear to support claims made in the F.I.R., there is no explanation for delay of more than 15 days in lodging the F.I.R., the applicant is in jail since 15.06.2022 and does not have any previous criminal history, 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 Ahevaran, 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 :- 13.9.2022
kvg/-
