Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Haroon vs State Of U.P. on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41859 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohd. Haroon
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Pandey,Amit Daga,Azad Khan,Somit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Apoorv Tiwari,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Raj Kumar Yadav,Satya Prakash
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Deepak Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Apporv Tiwari, learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
There were allegations against the applicant in the FIR that he is practicing lawyer at District Court, Hameerpur and had committed the offences of voyeurism and stalking against the informant, who is posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division/Fast Track Court), Hamirpur.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the police has falsely implicated him under Sections 354, 354A, 354D and 509 IPC. He has submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this case only on the ground of suspicion that he was following the informant and giving her unwanted attention. He has submitted unconditional apology in the bail application in case something against his conduct has been found wanting by the informant. Applicant is in jail since 22.08.2022.
Learned counsel for informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant has committed the alleged acts in drunken state and has made inappropriate comments against informant. The applicant is not permitting the trial to proceed and had filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C., which was rejected. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he will again misbehave and commit such acts against other female judicial officers and they will feel insecure while working in the courts.
Learned A.G.A has also opposed the prayer for bail made by the applicant and has stated that the person like the applicant do not deserves to be enlarged on bail since they are targeting the judicial officers and it would be difficult for them to discharge their duties.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the offences alleged against the applicant are bailable, except offence under Section 354 IPC, but considering the gravity of the allegations made against applicant in the FIR he requires to be enlarged on short term bail of two months since he is in jail for more than six months. His conduct shall be under watch and the counsel for informant will inform this court on the next date regarding the conduct of the applicant with the informant and before the trial court and will also bring on record the progress of the trial during the period of two months wherein he would be on bail. The trial court is expected to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months.
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.
Let the applicant, Mohd. Haroon, involved in Case Crime No. 248 of 2022, under Sections- 354, 354Ka, 354Gha, 509 IPC , Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Hameerpur, be released on interim bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned for a period of two months subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i)The applicant will not appear before informant in any case and his case before the court of informant shall be transferred by the District and Sessions Judge to some other court.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
List this case on 15th May, 2023.
In failure to comply this order, the interim bail granted to the applicant for limited period of two months shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023
Abhishek
