Allahabad High Court
Sandeep vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107338
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16734 of 2024
Applicant :- Sandeep
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Leaned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 06.04.2024.
3. Heard Shri Om Prakash, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 I.P.C. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor niece of the informant on 13.02.2024 at about 8:30 a.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 FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party which is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that the applicant was her boyfriend and she had gone with him as it was pre-decided between the two. She wanted to marry the applicant and she had gone with him to Farrukhabad, whereby the corporeal relationship between the two was established, although she has later stated that the applicant had raped her twice.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that as per school certificate, the age of the victim is stated to be 16 years, 3 months and 23 days as her date of birth is 21.10.2007. A leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side in light of the judgments of theSupreme Court passed in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.
8. 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 16.02.2024. 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. 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, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
11. 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 A.G.A. for the State.
12. 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.
13. Let the applicant- Sandeep 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.
14. 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.
15. 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
Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
