High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akshaya Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 711 of 2024, under Sections 74, 351(2), 65(2) of BNS, Section 5m/6/9m/10 of POCSO ACt Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the daughter of the informant and passed indecent remarks on her on 02.08.2024 at about 11 a.m. when she was returning from her school. The applicant had threatened the informant and his daughter whereby out of fear, they could not institute the FIR. There are other allegations against the applicant also. 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 FIR is delayed by about 22 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

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

8. It is a clear cut case of false implication as the father of the applicant had complained to the authorities regarding illegal appointment of the brother of the informant. The said application has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed with the bail application.

9. Earlier on also, there was animosity between the parties and cross-case was instituted between them.

10. The applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the said case. Except that case, the applicant has no criminal history.

11. 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.

12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2024. 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 :

13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is a bully in the area and out of his fear, the FIR could not be instituted which is but mentioned in the FIR itself. The victim is of tender age i.e. seven years old. CONCLUSION:

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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".

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

20. 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.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and the said application being given by the father of the applicant 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.

22. Let the applicant- Yasar 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 4.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akshaya Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 711 of 2024, under Sections 74, 351(2), 65(2) of BNS, Section 5m/6/9m/10 of POCSO ACt Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the daughter of the informant and passed indecent remarks on her on 02.08.2024 at about 11 a.m. when she was returning from her school. The applicant had threatened the informant and his daughter whereby out of fear, they could not institute the FIR. There are other allegations against the applicant also. 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 FIR is delayed by about 22 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

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

8. It is a clear cut case of false implication as the father of the applicant had complained to the authorities regarding illegal appointment of the brother of the informant. The said application has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed with the bail application.

9. Earlier on also, there was animosity between the parties and cross-case was instituted between them.

10. The applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the said case. Except that case, the applicant has no criminal history.

11. 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.

12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2024. 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 :

13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is a bully in the area and out of his fear, the FIR could not be instituted which is but mentioned in the FIR itself. The victim is of tender age i.e. seven years old. CONCLUSION:

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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".

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

20. 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.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and the said application being given by the father of the applicant 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.

22. Let the applicant- Yasar 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 4.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad