Allahabad High Court
Preetam Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 August, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:138371 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27434 of 2024 Applicant :- Preetam Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 19.07.2024.
2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.49 of 2024, under Sections 323, 342, 376(2)N, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Crossing Public, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have met the victim at Noida and as such he had promised her a job and subsequently established corporeal relationship with her showing her to be a married lady and had clicked certain photographs and videos of her.
5. The victim is stated to be a minor lady belonging to Almora, Uttarakhand, as such the instant FIR was registered as Zero FIR at Almora and was subsequently transferred to Ghaziabad and was registered there as FIR No.49 of 2024.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The allegations are per se false.
8. There is no recovery of video or photo of the victim from the possession of the applicant or her either.
9. The allegations have subsequently been made against the applicant and his father, which are false.
10. The victim got married with the applicant.
11. The applicant wants to take care of his wedded wife, but she is not ready to spent her life with the applicant.
12. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major, although her date of birth is stated to be 12.07.2006, which is marginally less than her age of majority.
13. 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.
14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
15. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
16. ?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.
17. ?A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
18. ?Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".
19. ?Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
20. ?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.
21. 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.
22. Let the applicant- Preetam Sharma involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(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.
23. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
24. 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 :- 29.8.2024 Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)