Allahabad High Court
Ajay Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112257
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18355 of 2023
Applicant :- Ajay Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Learned A.G.A. informed that notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 159 of 2019, under Section 376D, 341 of IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Hayat Nagar, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application is rejected vide order dated 15.02.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50789 of 2022.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the first bail application was rejected considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that PW-1 informant who happens to be father of the victim was examined during trial and he did not corroborate the version of the prosecution and was declared hostile. It is further submitted that victim was also examined by the trial court as PW-2 she has categorically denied that present applicant had committed rape upon her. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to corroborate the prosecution version at this stage. Lastly it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2022 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.
Let the applicant Ajay Pal in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
Gaurav
