Allahabad High Court
Sahid @ Sahil Saifi vs State Of U.P. on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4955 of 2021
Applicant :- Sahid @ Sahil Saifi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mata Pher,Shree Prakash Giri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 370 of 2020, under Sections 376, 354 (Kha), 506 IPC, Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that according to medical examination report, no internal or external injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that prosecutrix was in physical relation with the applicant according to her own sweet will before lodging the first information report. The victim has also taken loan from the applicant several times and victim further demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the applicant, and when the demand was not fulfilled, the applicant was roped in the present false case. It is further submitted that there are material improvement in the statements recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim during her deposition before the trial. It is further submitted that statement of the prosecutrix has been concluded. In the supplementary affidavit, criminal history of one case of the applicant has been mentioned in which he has been granted bail. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.09.2022 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that the allegations in the first information report are of serious in nature, which are corroborated by the victim in her statement under sections 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. and also during her deposition before the trial court.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
The statement of the proseuctix has been concluded before the trial court. Applicant is in jail since 13.09.2022.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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 Sahid @ Sahil Saifi in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023
T.S.
