Allahabad High Court
Sudama Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2021
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4060 of 2021 Applicant :- Sudama Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prakash Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prakash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and 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 ulterior motive. It is next contended that the dispute with regard to drainage of water is going on between the parties and only to put pressure on the applicant present FIR has been lodged against the applicant. It is further submitted that the medical report does not corroborates with the prosecution story. It is further submitted that no such incident has ever taken place. 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 2.12.2020. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have 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- Sudama Pal, be released on bail in Case Crime No.419 of 2020, under Sections- 354-Kha IPC & Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Kalpi, District- Jalaun, 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.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021 Dev/-