Allahabad High Court
Deepak vs State Of U.P. on 3 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107969 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21124 of 2024 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Babhru Vahan Singh,Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devendra Yadav,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Devendra Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.31 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 377, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have clicked some indecent photographs and videos of the informant and started blackmailing her. On 28.12.2019 at about 7:30 p.m., the applicant is stated to have promised the informant that he shall delete the photographs and videos. He again had called her, as such, forcibly took her in car whereby the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have raped her. The applicant subsequently took her all the way to Gujarat and subsequently, the applicant is stated to have sexually harassed her there for a substantial period of time and used to beat her, somehow the victim got mobile number of her brother on facebook and messaged him, who retrieved her to Kanpur whereby the applicant is again stated to have forcibly tried to establish physical relationship with her, as such, the instant F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on 06.02.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further stated that the F.I.R. is delayed by about four years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is also stated that the explanation accorded in the F.I.R. itself is on flimsy grounds as the victim has even not reported the matter after returning back to Kanpur. He has further stated that the victim and the applicant both are major and the said F.I.R. has been instituted against the applicant just to force the applicant into compromise. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. 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, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Let the applicant- Deepak 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. 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.
12. 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 :- 3.7.2024 Jitendra