Allahabad High Court
Raman vs State Of Up Others on 3 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107831
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19596 of 2024
Applicant :- Raman
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhand Pratap Singh,Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 10.5.2024.
3. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.31 of 2024, under Sections 376(D), 363 I.P.C. and 5(g)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Iradatnagar, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, some unknown person is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years, a student of class 9, on 12.2.2024 at about 06:00 p.m.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up during investigation. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that applicant and Abhishek met her on way and she had gone with them on bike to Agra Cantt from thereon she had gone to Delhi and from Delhi to Gujarat and they are stated to have stayed there in a hotel for five days. The victim has been recovered after four days only. Learned counsel has stated that if the period of stay and the time of journey is counted, it shall come out to be more than 6-7 days.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The victim is a consenting party. As per the school certificate, her date of birth is 22.06.2006 which falls 17 years, 07 months and 28 days. Although by her physical appearance, she seems to be major.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person.
9. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.3.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Let the applicant- Raman 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 :- 3.7.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
