Allahabad High Court
Rohit Seth vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123524 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19063 of 2024 Applicant :- Rohit Seth Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ved Mani Sharma Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Lakshman Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.88 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have befriended the informant on Facebook and both the parties are stated to have kept on chatting with each other. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have taken Rs.17 lakhs in cash and Rs.1 lakh through banking transactions by fooling her.
5. After taking the said money, the applicant is stated to have threatened her and made corporeal relationship with her on the pretext that he shall make the said chatting and messages viral on social media. Subsequently, the applicant is even stated to have threatened her to make viral certain video of the informant, which is stated to be with him. There are other allegations against the applicant having taken several ornaments from the victim also.
6. On 30.08.2023, the applicant is stated to have been called by the police and it was agreed that he shall return back the said amount and ornaments, but he did not comply with the said promise, as such an application was moved before the Police Commissioner on 17.09.2023 and subsequently the instant FIR was instituted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
7. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. The instant FIR is a counterblast to the Case No.115397 of 2023 filed by the applicant against the informant and her husband, in which they have been summoned vide order dated 17.01.2024.
9. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 13.02.2024, which is after a lapse of twenty six days from the date of summoning.
10. There is no evidence whatsoever of any video being found from the possession of the applicant. The allegations are vague.
11. The said amount of Rs.1 lakh was transferred to the applicant which was due towards the informant.
12. 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.
13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024 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 INFORMANT:
14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the allegations of transfer of Rs.1 lakh are correct as the money has been transferred to the account of the applicant, but the fact that no video has been recovered has not been disputed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE BY A.G.A:
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. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
17. 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. for the State.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the case filed by the applicant against the informant and her husband coupled with the fact that there is no recovery of any video by the investigating officer, 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.
19. Let the applicant- Rohit Seth 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.
20. 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.
21. 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 :- 1.8.2024 Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)