Allahabad High Court
Anshu vs State Of U.P And 3 Others on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16675 of 2022
Applicant :- Anshu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Yadavendra Dwivedi,Raju Kanaujia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1.Notices had earlier been issued to informant and as per office report dated 10.08.2022, the informant has been personally served but no-one has put in appearance on behalf of informant.
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.201 of 2021 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3, 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)5 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Derapur, District Kanpur Dehat.
3. As per contents of first information report, the informant who has alleged herself to be a minor has stated that the applicant who was previously known to her forcibly sexually molested her and thereafter continued to do so while blackmailing the informant. It is stated that the applicant is trying to compel the informant to enter into marriage with him.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that the contents of the F.I.R. as well as statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. make the story completely improbable. It is submitted that in fact the parties are in a consensual relationship. It is further submitted that even as per the medical report, the age of informant has been determined as 19 years at the time of incident. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.09.2021 and as yet only charges have been framed in the trial. It is submitted that the applicant is of young age of 19 years and in case of continued incarceration, would have grave career difficulties.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that the statements of informant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborate the statement made in the F.I.R.
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 the age of informant has been indicated in the medical certificate as 19 years although the same is subject to evidence, it appears that initially the parties may have had consensual relationship, which may have gone sour, the statement of victim also indicates that the applicant has made a marriage proposal to the informant, it is also evident that the applicant is of young age of 19 years and has been under incarceration for more than one year with trial only in preliminary stage, since charge sheet has already been filed, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the applicant under incarceration, 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 Anshu, 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 :- 15.9.2022
kvg/-
