High Court

2. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0402 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3, 4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have intercepted the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years on way and had taken her to a field where Eucalyptus trees were planted and had committed rape with her after disrobing her and had also promised her to give money and a mobile. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

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

6. The victim seems to be a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that there is no sign of any struggle whatsoever.

7. The victim has stated that she was disrobed by the applicant.

8. Had it not been the case of consent, she would not have been disrobed.

9. There is no sign of tearing of any cloth whatsoever.

10. Even there is no proof that any money or mobile has been exchanged between the parties.

11. It is true that the victim is aged about 14 years only but there is no injury sustained by her during her medical examination.

12. The said allegations are per se false.

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 criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained as the said offences are bailable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.09.2024. 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 STATE :

15. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 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. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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".

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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Let the applicant- Bablu 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 :- 6.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0402 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3, 4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have intercepted the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years on way and had taken her to a field where Eucalyptus trees were planted and had committed rape with her after disrobing her and had also promised her to give money and a mobile. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

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

6. The victim seems to be a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that there is no sign of any struggle whatsoever.

7. The victim has stated that she was disrobed by the applicant.

8. Had it not been the case of consent, she would not have been disrobed.

9. There is no sign of tearing of any cloth whatsoever.

10. Even there is no proof that any money or mobile has been exchanged between the parties.

11. It is true that the victim is aged about 14 years only but there is no injury sustained by her during her medical examination.

12. The said allegations are per se false.

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 criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained as the said offences are bailable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.09.2024. 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 STATE :

15. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 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. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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".

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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Let the applicant- Bablu 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 :- 6.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)