High Court

2. Heard Sri Jai Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chandra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 666 of 2024, under Sections 376, 120-B, 328, 504, 354C, 509(B) of I.P.C., Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Tajganj, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant allegedly deceived the victim by taking her to obtain a bank loan, then coerced and manipulated her into entering a hotel. There, he spiked her drink and committed rape, subsequently videotaping the act to blackmail the informant for a substantial period. The applicant continued to pursue an illicit relationship with the victim and further harassed the informant's daughter with indecent phone calls and vulgar conversations. Consequently, an FIR was registered against him on 14.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

6. The FIR is delayed by more than three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The victim is the married lady having a daughter aged about 13- 14 years.

8. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident.

9. There is no recovery of any video or photographs of the victim from the possession of the applicant, as such, the allegations are per se false.

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 applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that by misusing his clout and out of lust, the applicant had tried to lure the informant and committed rape with her and even attempted the same with her minor daughter, as such, he is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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".

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

18. 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.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the fact of delay in lodging the FIR and also the victim was the married lady having a daughter from her marriage, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Kanta Prasad Alias Raman, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (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. 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.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

22. 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:- 24.1.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Jai Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chandra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 666 of 2024, under Sections 376, 120-B, 328, 504, 354C, 509(B) of I.P.C., Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Tajganj, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant allegedly deceived the victim by taking her to obtain a bank loan, then coerced and manipulated her into entering a hotel. There, he spiked her drink and committed rape, subsequently videotaping the act to blackmail the informant for a substantial period. The applicant continued to pursue an illicit relationship with the victim and further harassed the informant's daughter with indecent phone calls and vulgar conversations. Consequently, an FIR was registered against him on 14.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

6. The FIR is delayed by more than three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The victim is the married lady having a daughter aged about 13- 14 years.

8. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident.

9. There is no recovery of any video or photographs of the victim from the possession of the applicant, as such, the allegations are per se false.

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 applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that by misusing his clout and out of lust, the applicant had tried to lure the informant and committed rape with her and even attempted the same with her minor daughter, as such, he is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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".

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

18. 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.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the fact of delay in lodging the FIR and also the victim was the married lady having a daughter from her marriage, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Kanta Prasad Alias Raman, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (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. 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.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

22. 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:- 24.1.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal)