Allahabad High Court
Abhinav @ Pawan Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98846
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20193 of 2024
Applicant :- Abhinav @ Pawan Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.12 of 2024, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, some unknown person is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant who was a student of class 12th on 19.01.2024 at about 9:30 a.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has come up later on in the statement of the victim recorded by the investigating officer. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has categorically stated that she knew the applicant for about two years and was in love with him and had herself left her house out of her own sweet will and had married the applicant in a temple. She has shown her willingness to go with the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. 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 06.02.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor at the time of offence as her date of birth is 20.02.2007, which comes out to be 16 years and 11 months, as such her consent pales into insignificance. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that it is a case of honey-trap and the applicant is not entitled for bail.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that by her appearance, the victim looks to be major. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed 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. No provisions of POCSO have been foisted on the applicant. She was a student of class 12th.
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, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Learned A.G.A. 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 A.G.A. 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- Abhinav @ Pawan Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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 :- 30.5.2024
Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
