Allahabad High Court

Ravi vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2025

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4878

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45859 of 2024

Applicant :- Ravi

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Romeshwari Prasad

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Romeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raghuvansh Chandra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.353 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64(1), 115(2), 131, 351(3), 125, 118(1), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) B.N.S. (452, 376, 323, 352, 507, 336, 337, 338, 324, 149, 147, 148
I.P.C
.), Police Station- Jaani, District- Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted by the victim/informant stating that her husband is employed as truck driver, and as such, he often remains out of station. In the night of 31.10.2024, the applicant is stated to have forcibly barged into her house and committed rape with her. On hearing her shrieks, her husband is stated to have reached there, whereby, the applicant is stated to have assaulted him with knife causing grievous injuries to him.

5. In the meantime, other family members of the applicant reached there and had assaulted other persons also. There are allegations against one Anand of having fired at them.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The FIR is delayed by about eleven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No time of offence is mentioned in the FIR.

7. There is no firearm injury sustained by any person whatsoever. There is only one injured person person, husband of the victim/informant, who is stated to have sustained seven injuries in all of which three are incised wound, one is lacerated wound, two are traumatic swelling and one is complaint of pain. The injuries sustained by the victim/informant are simple in nature, i.e. bangle marks on her wrist.

8. The applicant has sustained fractures in the incident caused by the husband of the victim. There is no explanation of the injuries sustained by the applicant. Injuries of the applicant are but evident from the certificate of P.L. Sharma District Male Hospital, Meerut, whereby the applicant was admitted on 1.11.2024 at 05:00 a.m. and was discharged the next day on 2.11.2024 at 10:00 a.m. Thereafter, he was taken into custody by the police. The said discharge slip indicates that applicant was unable to stand on his legs and was unable to walk as such.

9. The case of rape has been foisted on the applicant out of vengeance.

10. 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.

11. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained as the offences are petty in nature, which have been explained in paragraph-25 of the affidavit filed with bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.11.2024 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 STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that injuries sustained by the injured person are grievous in nature and the said discharge slip of the applicant does not indicate the time of injury sustained by the applicant, as such, those injuries might have been caused some time before the incident.

13. In rebuttal, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that had it been so, the applicant would not have been able to commit the said crime as the applicant is unable to move after the said incident.

CONCLUSION:

14. The Supreme Court in
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another
, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

15.
In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in
Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others
AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

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.

17. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
, 2022 INSC 690.

18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of
Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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?.

19. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Let the applicant- Ravi 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 9.1.2025

Vikas

(Justice Krishan Pahal)