Allahabad High Court
Suraj vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55566 of 2022
Applicant :- Suraj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits though the victim has made allegation against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but at the same time, she has stated that the applicant was working in a factory and she prepare meal for him, which itself shows that the victim is a consenting party. He next submits that submits that the victim was medically examined at C.H.C. Loni on 12.05.2018 and 05.08.2018, however, no external or internal injury was seen. He next submits that the victim is a consenting party and therefore, no offence against the applicant is made out and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.05.2018 i.e. more than 4 1/2 years. Learned counsel for the applicant drawn the attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-
"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 Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, 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, 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."
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
4. 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, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
5. Let applicant Suraj involved in Case Crime No. 333 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.
E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.2.2023
S.Ali
