Allahabad High Court
Ashish Vashishth vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78120 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13771 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashish Vashishth Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2025, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station - Sadar Bazar, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant Is stated to have met the victim at Jan Sewa Kendra and both are stated to have exchanged contact number there. The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with her by taking her to hotel on the promise of solemnizing court marriage with her.
5. The victim is stated to have travelled with the applicant to several places and stayed in hotels. Subsequently, it was revealed that the applicant was already a married person and having a son, as such, concealed the said fact and established relationship with her.
6. The victim was impregnated due to the said relationship with the applicant and the applicant is stated to have got the said pregnancy terminated in collusion with his mother and other family members.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
7. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.
8. The FIR itself is delayed by about two years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
9. It is true that the applicant is a married person but the victim seems to be a consenting party as earlier the FIR was instituted by the brother of the victim on 23.05.2023 which was entered as Case Crime No. 167 of 2023 u/s 366 IPC. In the said case, her statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2023 whereby she has categorically stated that she had left her house on her own rather she has stated that the name of the applicant has wrongly been dragged by her brother, as such, the closure report has been filed in the said case.
10. Subsequent to it, the Zero FIR has been instituted by the informant at the police station New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi on 19.10.2024 and the same was registered at the police station Sadar Bazar, Commissionerate Agra City on 21.08.2025 which is the present FIR.
11. The instant case has been instituted as an afterthought, as such, it is a clear cut case of misuse of process of law.
12. The victim is the consenting party and as per her own statement, she was 22 years old on 29.04.2023, as such, at this point of time, she is about 24 years old.
13. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.
14. It is true that the applicant is a married person having a son from his marriage but the said fact was very much in the knowledge of the victim. Even considering the statement of the victim to be true, the FIR is delayed by two years, as such, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
15. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2025, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT:
16. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant, who is aged about 32 years, has misused his clout and being already a married person having child from his earlier marriage, he has ruined the life of the young girl, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:
17. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history except the case instituted earlier on by the brother of the victim in which closure report has been filed.
CONCLUSION:
18. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
19. 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.
20. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
21. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized 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".
22. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
23. 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 AGA.
24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the inordinate delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that the victim had earlier on in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. exonerated the applicant, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.
25. Let the applicant- Ashish Vashishth, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
26. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
27. 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:- 13.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal)