Allahabad High Court
Sonu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113139 Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21686 of 2023 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Om Anand,Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Saroj,Kumar Parikshit,Nitesh Vishwakarma,Snehlata Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghansyam Mishra, learned brief holder for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 90 of 2018, under Sections 370 IPC & 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Suriyawan, District Bhadohi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 22.03.2018 under Section 363 IPC against unknown person and according to the FIR, minor daughters of the informant aged about 10 and 12 years had gone to purchase clothes but they did not return.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 363 IPC against unknown person but during investigation when the victims were recovered and their statements were recorded then four persons were made accused as there were allegations against them to sell victims, who were minor girls and although, both the victims disclosed the name of the applicant in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but they did not make any accusation against the applicant, therefore, during investigation applicant was not made accused and no chargesheet was filed against him and chargesheet was filed only against four accused persons against whom there were allegations to sell the victims.
5. He next submits that chargesheeted accused persons have already been released on bail and during trial when both the victims of the case appeared before the trial court then they repeated the version of their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and on the application moved by prosecution, applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that even from the statements of the victims recorded by the trial court it could not be reflected that applicant in any manner indulged in the present crime and even neither in the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. nor in bail rejection order any evidence recorded by the trial court has been discussed and merely on the basis of the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., applicant was summoned and his bail application was dismissed.
6. He next submitted that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail since 10.04.2023 and, therefore, he may be released on bail.
7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statements of the victims and allegations against the applicant are serious and they indulged in human trafficking of minor girl but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that chargesheeted accused persons have already been released on bail and both the victims in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation against the applicant that he also sold them and only stated that the applicant accompanied them up to the railway station and allegation of human trafficking was made by the victim against other accused persons.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. Although it is the case of human trafficking but applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and from the perusal of the summoning order as well as rejection order it appears that applicant was summoned basically on the basis of the statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and his bail application was also dismissed on the ground of the statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. From the statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that they did not make any allegation of human trafficking against the applicant and they only stated that applicant accompanied them up to the railway station and one victim in addition stated that with the help of the applicant she catched the train and thereafter when victims arrived at Delhi station, then other accused persons sold them and therefore from perusal of their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that victims did not make any allegation of human trafficking against the applicant.
10. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail
11. Let the applicant- Sonu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023 S.A.