High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63113 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9236 of 2025 Applicant :- Saddam Husain Alias R.N. Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Narain Mishra,Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Vipul Kumar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajit Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mehtab Alam, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.768 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 64 B.N.S., Police Station- Ramgarhtaal, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant is stated to have committed gang-rape with the victim on 22.7.2023, as such, FIR No.685 of 2023, U/s 376-D and 506 I.P.C. was instituted on the order of Hon'ble Chief Minister, U.P., Lucknow on 6.11.2023, but the applicant in collusion with the police and using his clout had got the said Section 376-D I.P.C. deleted and the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted U/s 323, 504 I.P.C. only. 5. The victim had left her job where she was employed with the applicant, and subsequently, joined the planetarium at Gorakhpur. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have tortured her and had come to her house on 27.10.2024 and tried to commit rape with her. The applicant is even stated to have threatened her to throw acid on her face and disfigure her. 6. There are allegations against the wife of the applicant also to have colluded with the applicant. The said incident had caused adverse affect on her minor children, as such, the instant FIR was instituted by the informant on 28.12.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 7. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 8. The FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 9. The same victim had instituted an FIR earlier on also against the applicant in which final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted U/s 323, 504 I.P.C. only finding the allegations of rape false. The victim is a married lady having two children from her marriage and has falsely implicated the applicant. 10. The allegation that applicant had concealed his religion stand falsified from the fact that the applicant was employed in the very same installation as the victim, as such, there was no occasion for him to conceal his religion. The said allegations have been made as an afterthought. 11. The instant FIR is hit by the provisions of res judicata as the instant FIR has put the applicant to double jeopardy. 12. The allegations that wife of the applicant had colluded with the applicant are also unbelievable. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 13. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant for the year 2016 stands explained. The applicant has yet to apply for bail in Case Crime No.685 of 2023, which itself is bailable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.1.2025. 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: 14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is threatening the victim from jail and had sent his wife to the applicant alongwith many letters asking her to visit the jail and meet the applicant, as such, his release would be detrimental to the interest of the victim. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 15. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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”. 20. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 21. 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. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that FIR is delayed by about two months and also that victim is a married lady and she has not sustained any injury whatsoever coupled with the fact that criminal history of the applicant stands explained, 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. 23. Let the applicant- Saddam Husain Alias R.N. Singh 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 :- 24.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad