Jasveer Alias Ajay vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 8298 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jasveer Alias Ajay vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 June, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101159
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 631 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- Jasveer Alias Ajay
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pavan Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2025

1. Heard Mr. Shayam Sundar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant-appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present appeal has been served upon first informant opposite party No.2 on 19.01.2025. However, in spite of service of notice upon first informant opposite party-2 neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant/opposite party No.2 in opposition to this application for bail nor anyone has put appearance on his behalf to oppose this appeal even in revised call.

4. This appeal for bail has been filed by applicant-appellant Jasveer Alias Ajay, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)M, 69, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 78(2) B.N.S. and 3(1)D, 3(1)Dh, 3(2)5, S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Chapar, District-Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned counsel for applicant-appellant submits that applicant-appellant is a named and charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

6. Referring to the FIR dated 03.10.2024, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant-appellant that in the day, date and time of occurrence column mentioned in the FIR, no particulars have been mentioned. He, therefore, submits that the FIR is highly belated. Attention of the Court was then invited to the body of FIR and on basis thereof, he submits that no date and time of the occurrence has been mentioned in the body of the FIR. As such, the FIR is highly belated. However, no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR has come forward in the FIR itself nor in the statement of first informant/opposite party-2 recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. As such, the delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained upto this stage.

7. Referring to the judgments of Supreme Court in (i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 and (iv). Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2024 SCC Online SC 938, the learned counsel for applicant-appellant contends that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgments has clearly observed that the criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of a delayed FIR cannot be sustained. He, therefore, submits that since the delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained, the criminal prosecution of applicant itself cannot be sustained. Much emphasis was laid upon paragraph 5 of the judgement of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (paragraph 5) (supra), wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused therein on the ground that there was an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

8. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant-appellant that no recovery of any obscene material was made from applicant-appellant and therefore, the applicant-appellant has not been charge sheeted under any provisions of the I.T. Act. On the above conspectus, he, therefore, submits that applicant-appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Even otherwise, applicant-appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant-appellant is in jail since 08.10.2024. As such, he has undergone more than 9 months of incarceration. The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant-appellant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such material has emerged on record on the basis of which it cannot be conclusively concluded that custodial arrest of applicant-appellant is imperative during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant-appellant that applicant-appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case, the applicant-appellant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant-appellant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Learned A.G.A. has then taken the Court to the body of the FIR and on basis thereof, he submits that specific allegations have been made against applicant-appellant in the FIR itself. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant-appellant. Applicant-appellant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix deliberately and forcibly. As such, offence complained of against applicant-appellant is not only illegal but also immoral. As such, applicant-appellant does not deserve any sympathy by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant-appellant in support of the present application for bail with reference to the record at this stage.

11. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant-appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that though applicant-appellant is a named and charge sheeted accused, however, the FIR giving rise to present criminal proceedings appeal is highly belated inasmuch as in the day, date and time of occurrence column mentioned in the FIR, no particulars have been mentioned, even in the body of the FIR the date of occurrence has not been mentioned, as such, the FIR is highly belated, moreover, the delay in lodging the FIR has not been sufficiently explained, in view of above, the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments is squarely attracted, though, allegations have been made against applicant-appellant in the body of the FIR on the basis of which the provisions of I.T. Act stands attracted but applicant-appellant has not been charge sheeted under any provision of the I.T. Act, the clean antecedents of applicant-appellant, the period of incarceration undergone, the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant-appellant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant-appellant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 in opposition to the present appeal for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant-appellant has made out a case for bail.

12. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

13. Let the applicant-appellant-Jasveer Alias Ajay, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT-APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT-APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT-APPELLANT 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

14. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant-appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 30.6.2025

Imtiyaz