High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40325 of 2021 Applicant :- Anil Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Gaur Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Gaud, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Avanish Kumar Shukla, the learned AGA for the State. This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Anil Saini for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.787 of 2018, under Sections 377, 506 IPC read with section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station- Nauchandi, District- Meerut. The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 9.4.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Sri Kundan Singh son of Karn Singh against the applicant and one other before P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut being FIR no.0787 of 2021 on 11.10.2018 at 21:46 hours under Sections 377, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act relatable to the commission of the offence against the applicant and one Aman with an allegation that the applicant along with other co-accused used to behave indecently with the son of the informant and even itself outraged the modesty of the boy, being the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards page-23 of the bail application so as to contend that when the Medico Legal Examination of the victim was sought to be done, then the date of incident was shown to be about one year ago, which was even not remembered by the child and the mother. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards page-24 referable to the column wherein whereat it has been mentioned that according to the mother of the victim the incident occurred one year ago, which has not even mentioned in the FIR and the second attempt the trial was done on Janmashtami, wherein he has tried to grab the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards page-24 just in the bottom with regard to the fact that no abnormality was detected. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards page-36 of the bail application which happens to be the statement under Section 161 CrPC of the victim wherein it has come on record that indecent behavior was being extended by the applicant which was not expected from a gentleman and even in fact attempts / actions were also taken for commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards page-44 of the bail application, which happens to be the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC, whereby the age of the applicant is being shown to be 30-35 years and that of other co-accused to be 17-18 years. Learned counsel for the applicant has thus argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case in question and further it is highly improbable that once an incident has occurred one year back, then the parent of the victim could have been in deep slumber and just in order to rope in the applicant, entire proceeding has been sought to be initiated. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of this Court towards the supplementary affidavit dated 23.1.2020 being page-7-8, on the medical examination also, it revealed that there was no injury mark seen on the anal area and there was no bleeding present. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that even from the deposition of the victim as well as of the victim, there is nothing on record to rope in the applicant. According to learned counsel for the applicant in case, he is enlarged on bail, then on the strength of supplementary affidavit filed today in relation to paragraph-3 and 4, the applicant has instructions that his client is ready to furnish surety of Rs.50,000/- and further he will appear before the concerned police station on each Monday of the months in question and he will not tamper and influence witnesses.Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph- 21 so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal he is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 3.1.2019. Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed the offence and that is why his name finds presence in the FIR and in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant does not possess any criminal history. Sri Ankit Gaud, learned counsel for the complainant has made a statement at bar that he is possessed with the instructions from his client to the extent that applicant may not be enlarged on bail simplicitor without any condition. However, some rider should be affixed therein, so as to eliminate any untoward chances as here in the present case, it is the issue of a minor child, and thus the proposal so extended by the learned counsel for the applicant in the supplementary affidavit so filed today would suffice. He further submitted that the trial of the case may also be expedited within a specified period. Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant does not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 3.1.2019, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances. Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Anil Saini involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and a heavy surety of Rs.50,000/- with the following conditions that :- i) The applicant shall ensure his presence before the police station concerned on the first Monday of the each month. ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. (v) The trial court shall expedite the trial of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of a year, without unnecessary delay. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Any 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. Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained. Order Date :- 2.3.2022 N.S.Rathour Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.04 10:36:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad