Allahabad High Court

Shailesh Rajbhar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 July, 2024

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107690

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16696 of 2024

Applicant :- Shailesh Rajbhar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar Yadav

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Shri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.81 of 2024, under
Sections 352
,
,
,
,
I.P.C. and 3/4
POCSO Act
, Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant in the night of 26.03.2024 at about 10:00 p.m. and had attempted to commit rape with her and assaulted her. On hearing her shrieks, her brother is stated to have come to the place of occurrence, whereby the applicant is stated to have run away avoiding him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eighteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR does not indicate any offence of rape being committed with her, but the same have been levelled at the time of recorded of statement under
Section 164
Cr.P.C. of the victim, which was recorded on 28.03.2024. Learned counsel has further stated that the said statement has been recorded after legal consultation. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that as per her own statement, the victim has stated her age to be 16 years, as such a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in
Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar
, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age.

In the case of
Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha
, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. It is also settled by Apex Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person.

7. 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 29.03.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per school certificate, the age of the victim was 15 years and 4 months only, as such she was minor and the applicant is not entitled for bail on this count only. But he could not dispute the fact that there was no allegations of rape in the FIR.

9. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the said material contradiction in the statement of the victim, 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.

13. Let the applicant-Shailesh Rajbhar 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

Ravi/-

(Justice Krishan Pahal)