In the case of P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63703 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7039 of 2025 Applicant :- Javed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Farooque Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ved Prakash Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Sri Mohammad Farooque Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ved Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri S.D. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mughalpura, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 5. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 25.12.2024 at about 12.30 pm. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 7. The FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had gone with the applicant all the way to Kaliyar Sharif, which is about 200 kms from her native place, and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. The victim by her looks, seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, she is stated to be 17 years old. 9. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.1.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 10. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the victim was minor and her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration in the eyes of law. As per Transfer Certificate of Class V, date of birth of the victim is 1.7.2011, as such, she was barely about 13 years old at the time of offence. CONCLUSION: 11. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim. 12. In the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 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 recapitulated 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 AGA 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 AGA. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., 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. 20. Let the applicant- Javed 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. 21. 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. 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 :- 25.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad