High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38704 of 2022 Applicant :- Sonu Jadaun@ Dharmendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Pati Singh Yadav,Shiv Shanker Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail. (D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors. (See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559) 7. As referred above, there are very serious allegations against applicant and co- accused that they have not only abducted victim but raped her for almost five years as well as they assaulted her also. Though co-accused has been granted bail but reasons given in bail order are not such that may be approved according to judgments passed by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar (supra) and Brijmani Devi (supra). For reference, reasons mentioned in bail order of co- accused are reproduced as under: “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.” 8. Considering seriousness of allegations and that for a very long period victim was treated inhumanly at the hands of applicant and co-accused that her body was ravished multiple times and was repeatedly beaten in naked condition as well as taking note that till date statement of victim has not been recorded and parity cannot be granted of an unreasoned order, prayer for bail is rejected. 9. However, the application is disposed of with direction to Trial Court to record statement of victim, if not already recorded, within a period of eight weeks from today, if there is no other legal impediment. Thereafter applicant is at liberty to file fresh application for bail before Trial Court. Order Date :- 21.3.2023 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Applicant-Sonu Jadaun alias Dharmendra Singh has approached this Court by way of filing present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0201 of 2022, under Sections 323, 342, 366, 376, 504 IPC, Police Station Etmadaula, District Agra, after rejection of his bail application vide order dated 18.08.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra. 3. There are serious allegations against applicant and co-accused that they have abducted victim and kept her as a mistress for almost five years. Both brothers, i.e., applicant and Manoj Jadaun, have committed rape of victim. By chance victim came out of their confinement and lodged FIR. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is a delay of five years and explanation, if any, is untenable. Co-accused, Manoj Jadaun (brother of applicant) has been granted bail by this Court that he was her husband. Learned counsel submits that there is criminal history of two cases against applicant. In one case no charge sheet has been filed and in second case applicant has been granted bail. He further submits that there are material contradictions amongst statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is a case of false implication, therefore, applicant may be released on bail. 5. Above submissions are opposed by learned AGA that there are very specific and serious allegations against applicant which are corroborated by victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Bail granted to co-accused is not accompanied by reasons as required by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501 and Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497. 6. LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY (A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail. (B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.