Allahabad High Court
Sharique vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6575 of 2023
Applicant :- Sharique
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Adil
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd Adil, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 507 of 2022, under Sections 376, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have entered into corporeal relationship with the informant for a period of four years on the pretext of marrying her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by four years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the victim is a consenting party as she is already a married lady and she has a two-year old child. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgments of Apex Court passed in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting marriage cannot be termed as rape.
7. 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 27.12.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that although it is true that the informant was married to one Nadeem, but it was the applicant, who had induced her to dissolve her marriage with him, and the same was done about six months before the said FIR. There is a 2-year old baby boy born out of the wedlock with Nadeem. The informant has been left alone without her legitimate child and is leading a life of vagrancy and destitution. However, learned A.G.A. is unable to dispute the fact that the said relationship has been entered into on the pretext of marriage.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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- Sharique 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 indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
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, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, within a period of two years from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
14. 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 on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 13.2.2023
Shalini
