Allahabad High Court
Shane Ali vs State Of U.P. on 15 February, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:26190 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54542 of 2023 Applicant :- Shane Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ravi Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Shane Ali, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2023, under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sahaswan, District- Budaun, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.2045 of 2023 (State Vs. Shane Ali) under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sahaswan, District- Budaun.
4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 10.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29758 of 2023 (Shane Ali vs. State of U.P. through its Secretary Home). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:-
"1. Heard Mr. V.P. Singh Kashyap, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Chandrabhan Kushwaha, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. This application for for bail has been filed by applicant Shane Ali seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun during the pendency of trial.
3. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 16.3.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 5.5.2023 was lodged by first informant Seema @ Saimeen which was registered as Case Crime No. 244 of 2023 under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Shane Ali has been nominated as solitary named accused.
4. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that two years prior to lodging of the F.I.R., the marriage of the prosecutrix was fixed with the named accused Shane Ali. Taking advantage of the same named accused dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix on 16.3.2023. However applicant is further alleged to have refused to perform marriage with the prosecutrix.
5. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that there is nothing on record to contradict the allegation made in the F.I.R. that betrothal ceremony was performed.As such the marriage of applicant was settled with the prosecutrix. Taking advantage of the said fact the applicant is alleged to have dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix repeatedly. However, applicant is said to have denied to marry the prosecutrix. The issue as to whether the betrothal ceremony was held or not and whether the applicant has refused to marry with the prosecutrix are issues of fact which can very appropriately be decided only during the course of trial. However, up to this stage, no such convincing material has emerged on the basis of which the allegations made in the F.I.R. could be unworthy of reliance. Reference has also been made to the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-
(i) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 608
(ii) Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 108
(iii) Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anther (2021) SCC On Line SC 181
(iv) Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2022
(v) Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89
6. On the above premise, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel representing first informant submit that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.
7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
8. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed."
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that charge sheet was submitted against the application on 2.06.2023 and the framing of charge order whereby charges were framed against applicant was passed on 21.10.2023. However, inspite of fact that a period of more than 3 months and 14 days has rolled by, prosecutrix has not yet appeared before court below for getting his statement-in-chief recorded. He therefore, contends that there is delay in the conclusion of trial. Since the applicant is under custody, therefore, he cannot be said to be responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, wherein, it has been held that an accused has also a fundamental right to speedy trial. With reference to the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above, it is thus urged that since aforesaid fundamental right of the applicant stands infringed on account of the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial. He, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 08.05.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 9 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. At this juncture, the leaned counsel for applicant has invited the attention of the court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5). It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Learned A.G.A. next contends that the prosecutrix is a young girl whose modesty was dislodged repeatedly after obtaining her confidence. After the betrothal ceremony had taken place, the applicant dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix repeatedly but has ultimately refused to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix. He, therefore, contends that since applicant is guilty of repeatedly dislodging the modesty of prosecutrix who is a young girl and aged about 30 years on the date of lodging of the F.I.R., therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. It is then contended that charge sheet was submitted against application on 02.06.2023 and the framing of charge order was passed on 21.10.2023. As such, it cannot be said that there is undue delay in the trial of applicant. In view of above, the ratio laid down in the case of A.R. Antulay (Supra) is not attracted in the present case. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant is by itself is not so sufficient so as to enlarge on bail. He thus, submits that present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the after the betrothal ceremony had taken place the applicant on the basis of above, repeatedly dislodged the modesty of prosecutrix, the prosecutrix is a young girl and aged about 30 years on the date of lodging of F.I.R., the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant only on 02.06.2023 and the framing of charge order was passed by court below on 21.10.2023, though, a period of 3 months and 23 days has expired from the date of framing of charge but it cannot be said that there is undue delay in the conclusion of trial, in view of the nature and gravity of offence, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant is by itself not so sufficient so as to enlarge the applicant on bail, therefore, irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this repeat application for bail, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
10. As a result, present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
11. It is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 15.2.2024 Imtiyaz