Allahabad High Court
Prabhat Yadav vs State Of U.P And 3 Others on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43378 of 2022
Applicant :- Prabhat Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ritukar Gupta,Suresh Kumar,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashirvad Pandey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ritukar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Prabhat Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2022, under Sections 376(2)(N), 504, 506, 190 IPC & Sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act & Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Cantt, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
There are allegations against the applicant of committing the offences of repeated rape, extending threats and committing offences under Section 190 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the allegations in the F.I.R., it appears that the applicant and the victim had affair since the year 2014 when she was allegedly minor. He has refused to marry her on 07.05.2022 and abused her and therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged. There is also allegation against the applicant that he has threatened the victim and her family members. Initially, the applicant was implicated in this case along with his brother and brother-in-law, but they were subsequently, exonerated by the police. The counsel has also submitted that earlier complaint was made by the victim against the applicant and it was settled for an amount of Rs. 9 lacs, which was paid to her through ECS mode. The victim has again filed a similar complaint and is demanding further money from the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 04.08.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the alleged offences are fully made out against the applicant and he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has also 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 deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the applicant has brought on record, the evidence of transfer of money by electronic mode in bank accounts and has stated that the aforesaid money has been transferred in the account of victim. A notarial compromise between the applicant and victim evidencing payment of Rs. 9 lacs have been brought on record as Annexure 11 to the amount in support of bail application which has not been disputed by the other side.
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
"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."
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
(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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
The Court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 9.1.2023 / G. Singh
