Allahabad High Court

Santosh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 February, 2025

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22939

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5211 of 2025

Applicant :- Santosh

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice has been served to the informant on 26.1.2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 293 of 2024, U/S 363, 366, 376
IPC
and 3/4
POCSO Act, 2012
, Police Station Kampiarganj, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the minor daughter of the informant on 2.3.2024 at about 10.00 am by taking her forcibly from her house.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations are per se false. It is stated that the complaint is delayed by thirteen days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. It is stated that the victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per her own statement. As per ossification test report also, her age is 17 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. The statement of the victim that she was hard at hearing is false. Even her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. indicates her consent, as she had gone with the applicant all the way to Gorakhpur city and stayed there with him. There is no medical corroboration of the allegations made in the FIR.

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 14.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

9.
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.

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.

11. 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.

12. 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?.

13. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

14. 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 State Law Officer.

15. 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.

16. Let the applicant- Santosh 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 :- 18.2.2025

Shalini

(Justice Krishan Pahal)