High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6786 of 2022 Applicant :- Suryabhan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.Paramhans Singh,Manvendra Narain Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) The victim was 35 years of age at the time of incident; (b) The applicant is brother-in-law of the first informant; (c) no obscene call recording has been collected during the investigation; (d) Family members of the victim has not supported the prosecution case. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage. It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Suryabhan Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 of Cr.P.C. (iv) 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 the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient case, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 5.5.2022 PS Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.05.11 17:05:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Suryabhan Yadav under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 66 I.T Act registered at Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, vide order dated 04.02.2022. Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 01.03.2021 has been lodged by the victim against the applicant stating that applicant was occasionally came in the house of the first informant. In the year 2016 he on the pretext of providing service made physical relation with the victim and on the basis of obscene call recording he began to blackmail the victim. On 16.04.2020 he snatched the mobile and committed marpeet with her and threatened for dire consequences and on the basis of obscene call recording the applicant demanded money from the victim and she gave gold chain to the applicant, after that he viral the obscene call recording to her relatives and other family members. After lodging of the first information report, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim has been recorded on 02.03.2021. Medical examination has also been conducted on 3.3.2021. Statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded on 4.3.2021. After recording the statement of the victim and other witnesses by the Investigating Officer, charge-sheet has been submitted on 10.5.2021. The applicant was arrested on 4.10.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is brother-in-law (mama ka damad). It is further submitted that first information report has been lodged after about 5 years of the incident. Husband of the first informant (victim) had died in the year 2015. It is further submitted that no obscene call recording has been collected during the course of investigation. The family members of the victim has not supported the prosecution case in their statements which have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that except the statement of the victim there is no other evidence against the complicity of the applicant. It is further argued that no date and time of the incident has been mentioned in the first information report as well as in the statements of the victim. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-6 of the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that he has been acquitted in case crime no. 558 of 2008 and other case is police encounter no injury case. Per contra, learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions Court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and he further submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But, he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.