Allahabad High Court
Suraj vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6721 of 2023
Applicant :- Suraj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Afshan Shafaut
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Original counter affidavit is not on record.
3. Heard Shri Kalpdev Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Afshan Shafaut, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.320 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station South, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 04.07.2022 at about 4:00 PM on the pretext that he shall marry her.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party. The case has been inflated later on and the age certificate of class Vth has been furnished, which has no evidential value as it shows the date of birth of the victim to be 08.09.2008. Learned counsel has further stated that as per statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that she had married the applicant in a temple and she wants to spend rest of her life with him. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.
10. Let the applicant- Suraj involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. 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 :- 5.4.2023
Ravi Kant
