Allahabad High Court
Vimal Kumar@ Shailu vs State Of U.P. on 1 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106307
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20442 of 2024
Applicant :- Vimal Kumar@ Shailu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Agarwal,Arvind Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)N, 354(Ga), 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Jasrana, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have recorded the videos of the victim in a compromising state and is stated to have threatened her and had even shown the said photographs and videos to the person with whom the marriage of the victim was to be solemnized, thereby got the said relation terminated.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false as the FIR was instituted under the Information Technology Act also, but subsequently the said section has been deleted as no video or photographs have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel has stated that the victim has subsequently married. The medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained in paragraph-28 of the affidavit filed with bail application. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.2.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the act of the applicant is serious and he has not let the victim marry the person of her choice, as such he is not entitled for bail.
9. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.
12. Let the applicant- Vimal Kumar@ Shailu involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
13. 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.
14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
