The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR

Applicant :- Suneel Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Leena Srivastava,Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 5.3.2025.

3. Heard Sri Naman Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.936 of 2021, under Sections 376AB I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Phase- 3, Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The FIR was instituted by the informant that her daughter was missing since 1.9.2021 at 02:00 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. The victim was recovered and her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she had not whispered a single word against the applicant.

9. It is true that applicant is the step-father of the victim, but he has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

10. The daughter concerned has been examined as PW-3 during trial and has stated that she has never been subjected to any kind of sexual assault, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

11. The name of the applicant has come up in the supplementary statement of the victim recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and in the statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. that too after an altercation with a neighbor.

12. The applicant is languishing in jail for no fault of his since 1.4.2022 and the victim and informant are not turning up for their examination in trial.

13. In all four witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as the trial is moving at a snail's pace. As such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as he is in jail for a substantial period of time i.e. about more than three years.

14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. 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/OPPOSITE PARTY:

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

16. This Court had called for a report from the trial court and perusal of the said report indicates that the court had taken every endeavor to serve process on the victim and informant and had taken coercive measure against them on thirteen occasions, but they have not turned up before the trial court.

17. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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”.

22. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. Let the applicant- Suneel Sharma 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 :- 22.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Suneel Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Leena Srivastava,Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 5.3.2025.

3. Heard Sri Naman Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.936 of 2021, under Sections 376AB I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Phase- 3, Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The FIR was instituted by the informant that her daughter was missing since 1.9.2021 at 02:00 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. The victim was recovered and her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she had not whispered a single word against the applicant.

9. It is true that applicant is the step-father of the victim, but he has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

10. The daughter concerned has been examined as PW-3 during trial and has stated that she has never been subjected to any kind of sexual assault, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

11. The name of the applicant has come up in the supplementary statement of the victim recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and in the statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. that too after an altercation with a neighbor.

12. The applicant is languishing in jail for no fault of his since 1.4.2022 and the victim and informant are not turning up for their examination in trial.

13. In all four witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as the trial is moving at a snail's pace. As such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as he is in jail for a substantial period of time i.e. about more than three years.

14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. 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/OPPOSITE PARTY:

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

16. This Court had called for a report from the trial court and perusal of the said report indicates that the court had taken every endeavor to serve process on the victim and informant and had taken coercive measure against them on thirteen occasions, but they have not turned up before the trial court.

17. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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”.

22. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. Let the applicant- Suneel Sharma 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 :- 22.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad