Saiman vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4023 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44418 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Saiman
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pal,Dewarshi Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

Learned A.G.A. Submits that as per the report received by him, the service upon the opposite party No.2/informant is sufficient.

No one appears for the opposite no.2/informant.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 361 of 2018, under Sections 323, 452, 354-B, 376/511 I.P.C. & 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to the reason that earlier wife of the applicant has registered an F.I.R. against the mother of the informant bearing Case Crime No. 798 of 2017, under Sections 494, 342, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., PS Bilaspur, District Rampur. It is further submitted that during investigation, the informant and victim have submitted an affidavit that no such incident took place. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim as well as informant. It is further submitted that criminal history of 14 cases against the applicant has been explained in para-14 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence.The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.06.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim was minor at the time incident. The informant and victim in their statements have made specific allegation against the applicant. It is further contended that applicant is a habitual offender and he has criminal history of 14 more cases. Hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Order Date :- 8.2.2023

AKT