High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125163 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22025 of 2023 Applicant :- Manoj Mahor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav,Ajay Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Learned A.G.A. submits that notice with regard to present bail application has been served on the informant and further submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that First Information Report was lodged on 5.10.2016 with the allegation that the daughter of informant went to agricultural field, however, she did not come back and after searching her, she was not traceable. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant and the victim had married each other on 13.6.2016 and after marriage three children were born out of the wedlock. The marriage document has been filed along with the bail application at Page 67. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has admitted that she had married with the applicant and two sons are born out of the wedlock. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that subsequently the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 5.7.2022 where the victim has stated that her marriage was done in a forcible manner in the Court and she had denied the marriage. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that marriage took place in the year 2016. The informant has not filed any suit for declaration of the marriage being null and void. It is further submitted that marriage took place with the consent of the parties and for six years, the marriage was successful. However, subsequently, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 15.11.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. 5. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail. 6. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court. 7. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 8. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 9. 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 for the State. 10. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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. 12. Let the applicant- Manoj Mahor involved in Case Crime No. 566 of 2016, under Sections 363,366, 376, 368 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Mathura 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 the following conditions:- i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. 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. vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. 13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 7.6.2023 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad