Allahabad High Court
Patiram vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 August, 2022
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12158 of 2022 Applicant :- Patiram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village party bandi and village enmity. F.I.R. has been lodged with the delay of two days for which no plausible explanation has been given. It is next contended that there is no specific allegation of rape against the applicant in the F.I.R., statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C., hence offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that victim has refused for her medical examination, which shows that applicant is innocent and no such incident took place. It is further submitted that applicant is aged about 57 years person. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.8.2018. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant- Patiram, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2018, under Sections- 363, 366, 376/511, 354, 506, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Thathiya, District- Kannauj, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022 A.P. Pandey