Allahabad High Court
Rohit Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238862
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41671 of 2023
Applicant :- Rohit Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Srivastava
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 630 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376D of IPC and Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21223 of 2021.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after the rejection of first bail application of the applicant, statement of prosecutrix has been recorded as P.W. 3 and during her cross examination, she did not make any allegation of committing rape against the applicant. All allegations are made against co-accused Subham Singh. It is further submitted that all witness of the fact has been examined and there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02.02.2021 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra learned AGA assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that during her examination in chief, victim has made all allegation of rape against the applicant but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
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."
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 Rohit Singh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount 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 :- 16.12.2023
SY
