Allahabad High Court
Sachin Baghel vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 May, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68994
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14608 of 2025
Applicant :- Sachin Baghel
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.372 of 2024, under Sections 64, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sasni, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial.
4. Earlier on, the bail application was filed regarding the offences under SC/ST Act and B.N.S. only and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 20.2.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.12733 of 2024, but subsequently the supplementary charge-sheet was submitted in added section under POCSO Act and as such the instant bail application has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is 21 years old, but the said Sections of POCSO Act have been added as it was shown by the victim that the said relationship was since last five years, as such, she was about 16 years old at onset of crime. The said allegations are false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 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.
9. Let the applicant- Sachin Baghel, 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. 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 :-1.5.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
