High Court

2. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhirendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have administered some psychotropic material to the victim rendering her unconscious and had committed rape with her in the month of September, 2022 and had taken certain indecent video and photographs of her. The victim is stated to have sustained injuries on her private part.

5. The applicant is stated to have threatened her to make viral the said video and photographs. The applicant is even stated to have sold the property of the informant by force and again demanded money from her to dispose of the said video and photographs. The applicant is even stated to have threatened her regarding the fact that he had a Nikaahnama in his possession. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The FIR is delayed by about two years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. The victim had married the applicant. The said property was sold and the applicant is the witness of the said sale deed which is an admitted fact.

9. The instant FIR has been subsequently instituted just to add colour to the prosecution story as both had fallen apart.

10. There is no medical corroboration to the prosecution story.

11. There is no recovery of any indecent video or photographs of the victim.

12. There is no criminal history assigned to the applicant except one case as Case Crime No. 107 of 2008 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act Police station- Kalpi, District-Jalaun and the case was settled in the same year as the matter was resolved.

13. 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.

14. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2024. The applicant 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 INFORMANT :

15. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the said Nikaahnama is fake. The said fact stands fortified from the statement of the Qazi. Even the forged Family Register of the victim has been made. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

16. 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.

17. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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".

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

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Let the applicant- Zahid Beg Alias Ballu 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 21.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhirendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have administered some psychotropic material to the victim rendering her unconscious and had committed rape with her in the month of September, 2022 and had taken certain indecent video and photographs of her. The victim is stated to have sustained injuries on her private part.

5. The applicant is stated to have threatened her to make viral the said video and photographs. The applicant is even stated to have sold the property of the informant by force and again demanded money from her to dispose of the said video and photographs. The applicant is even stated to have threatened her regarding the fact that he had a Nikaahnama in his possession. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The FIR is delayed by about two years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. The victim had married the applicant. The said property was sold and the applicant is the witness of the said sale deed which is an admitted fact.

9. The instant FIR has been subsequently instituted just to add colour to the prosecution story as both had fallen apart.

10. There is no medical corroboration to the prosecution story.

11. There is no recovery of any indecent video or photographs of the victim.

12. There is no criminal history assigned to the applicant except one case as Case Crime No. 107 of 2008 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act Police station- Kalpi, District-Jalaun and the case was settled in the same year as the matter was resolved.

13. 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.

14. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2024. The applicant 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 INFORMANT :

15. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the said Nikaahnama is fake. The said fact stands fortified from the statement of the Qazi. Even the forged Family Register of the victim has been made. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

16. 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.

17. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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".

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

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Let the applicant- Zahid Beg Alias Ballu 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 21.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)