Pradeep @ Garibe v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party no.1.

As per office report dated 19.05.2025, opposite party no.2, informant has been served but has not put in appearance.

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 91 of 2024 under Section 377 I.P.C. & Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Ranipur, District Bahraich.

As per contents of FIR, applicant stands co-accused of performing unnatural sex with the minor son of informant on 29.04.2024.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only on account of previous enmity. He has adverted to the supplementary affidavit dated 06.05.2025 to submit that deposition of the victim as P.W. 2 during course of trial has been brought on record and in his cross-examination, he has not supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 01.05.2024 with only two prosecution witnesses having been examined and a total of six more prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that contents of FIR have been duly supported by victim in his examination-in-chief. It is, however, admitted that prosecution version has not been supported in the cross-examination.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. " "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. "

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that the victim as PW-2 during the course of trial has not supported the prosecution version in his cross-examination. The applicant is under incarceration since 01.05.2024 and six more prosecution witnesses still remaining. It is evident that the witnesses of fact have already been examined. Evidently, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

Let applicant, Pradeep @ Garibe, involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Satish