Allahabad High Court
Gudiram vs State Of U.P. on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2372 of 2023
Applicant :- Gudiram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shantanu Srivastava,Saurabh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Rizwan Ulla Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shantanu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 146 of 2022, under Section 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sherkot, District- Bijnor during pendency of the trial in the court below.
From perusal of record, it appears that in the present matter i.e. in the same case crime number, applicant had already been released on bail under Section 376, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act but the bail application of applicant was dismissed by the court concerned in the subsequently added Section 506 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the same case crime number i.e. in the present matter applicant had already been released on bail by this Court under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act on 23.12.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47067 of 2022. He produced the bail order passed by this Court dated 23.12.2022 during the course of arguments, which is take on record. He further submitted that thereafter Section 506 I.P.C. was added and when he applied bail before the court concerned under Section 506 I.P.C., then his bail application was rejected in the added section.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that earlier applicant had already been released on bail under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act in the same case crime number and he is seeking bail in subsequently added Section 506 I.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
It is a case, in which inspite of the fact that applicant had already been released on bail by this Court under major offences his bail application was rejected by the court concerned in subsequently added Section 506 I.P.C.
From the record, it appears that first information report of the present case was lodged on 16.07.2022, under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act and applicant had been released on bail by this Court on 23.12.2022 under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act but it appears that thereafter Section 506 I.P.C. was added and when applicant applied for bail under Section 506 I.P.C. before the court concerned then his bail application under Section 506 I.P.C. was rejected.
From the bail rejection order dated 13.09.2022, it appears that learned court concerned was apprised by the fact that applicant has already been released on bail by this Court under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act but inspite of that his bail application was rejected under Section 506 I.P.C. i.e. in added section.
Therefore, in view of the discussions made above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail in subsequently added Section 506 I.P.C.
Let the applicant- Gudiram be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to remind the court concerned that personal liberty is the most cherished fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India and it must be protected. In case at hand, applicant had already been enlarged on bail in major offences by this Court therefore, his bail application ought to have been allowed by the court concerned in subsequently added Section 506 I.P.C. Learned Special Judge, POCSO Act failed to notice the fact that maximum punishment provided under Section 506 I.P.C. is seven years and as per the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2021 (10) SCC 733 and Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others MANU/SC/0851/2022, bail application moved by applicant under Section 506 I.P.C. ought not to be rejected.
Recently, the Apex Court has deprecated such practice in case of Chandmal @ Chandanmal vs. State of M.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2023 arising out from SLP (Crl) No. 1912 of 2022 and observed as:-
"We may note that even the mandate subsequently incorporated in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. - (2021) 10 SCC 773 has been violated. We fail to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex court unnecessarily."
Hopefully, in future learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor will keep in mind the principals and law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) while deciding bail applications.
With these observations, the instant application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 15.2.2023
Aditya
