Allahabad High Court
Anis vs State Of U.P.And 3 Others on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 17.01.2023
Delivered On:- 24.01.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46628 of 2022
Applicant :- Anis
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Afzal
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Shahrukh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the informant; Sri C.L. Singh, AGA-I for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. There is allegation against the applicant that the applicant was implicated by the informant in Case Crime No. 73 of 2021, under Sections 376/323 IPC. After coming out from jail, the applicant started pressurising the informant to marry him and she entered into Nikaah with him on 25.12.2021. After marriage, he developed bad intentions towards her 15 years old minor daughter and one day at about 11.00 p.m the applicant used criminal force to disrobe her and when she cried for help the informant reached and saved her daughter. Thereafter he tried to strangulate her by chunni. Hence, FIR was registered under Sections 323, 352, 354-B and 7/8 POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident alleged took place on 28.03.2022 and FIR has been lodged on 14.04.2022 without explanation of delay in lodging of FIR. In the statement of the victim, she has made allegation that she suffered injuries on her private part but she was not medically examined. He has submitted that the informant is a divorcee and initially befriended the applicant and thereafter lodged an FIR against him under Sections 376/323 IPC and then also married him. After he was released on bail in the aforesaid case, he executed a power of attorney of his house in the name of informant. After execution of power of attorney, she started misbehaving with the applicant and hence the applicant got the power of attorney cancelled on 10.05.2022. Thereafter the present FIR was lodged to falsely implicate the applicant. He has no criminal history except the case aforesaid under Sections 323 and 376 ICP and another case under sections 323/326 IPC lodged by the same informant against him.
4. Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that power of attorney was executed by the applicant not solely in the name of informant but the same was executed by the applicant in favour of his brother, Nafees and informant, Smt. Rihana, together. After the informant started dispute with him, he cancelled the aforesaid power of attorney in favour of his brother and also the informant.
5. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.
6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the applicant and the informant know each other well and sometimes they had good relation and sometime bad relation. There is no medical evidence in support of the allegations made by the daughter of the informant against the applicant that she was caused injuries on her private part by the applicant.
7. Keeping in view the deterioration in relationship of the informant with the applicant and consequent cancellation of power of attorney executed by the applicant in favour of the informant, there can be reason of false implication of the applicant in this case. He is in jail since 22.05.2022.
8. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and 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.
9. Let the applicant, Anis, involved in Case Crime No. 420 of 2022, under Sections- 323, 352, 376(2)(cha) IPC and Section 5n/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Indrapuram, District- Ghaziabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year as per Section 309 Cr.P.C from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.01.2023
Rohit
