Allahabad High Court
Jhabba @ Somesh vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 1 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106054
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19229 of 2024
Applicant :- Jhabba @ Somesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Chandra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.325 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376D.A., 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Fatehabad, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away and taken away the minor daughter of the informant in the night of 12.11.2023 at about 11:00 p.m. and had returned her in the morning of 13.11.2023 at about 04:00 a.m. The applicant is stated to have made several calls to the informant and threatened him.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Subsequently, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has escalated the allegations to that of rape against the applicant and co-accused person Pradeep. Learned counsel has stated that allegations are per se false. Even the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. states that applicant had left her in a lurch to fetch some money and had not returned. The said fact indicates otherwise against the prosecution allegations.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. 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.
8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. It is further stated that co-accused person Pradeep Kumar has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12539 of 2024. 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 22.11.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and that to the FIR, 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.
11. Let the applicant- Jhabba @ Somesh 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.
12. 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.
13. 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)
