High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178347 Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35367 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Shaktiman Pasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits. 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 applicant is the husband and the First Information Report was lodged by the wife. The marriage has taken place on 9.2.2023. However subsequently, the dispute has arisen between the parties as a result of same, general allegations have been made with regard to assault on the wife by the family members and the applicant. Subsequently, force abortion allegations have been made. It is submitted that no external injuries have been found and the FIR has been lodged with delay. It is also submitted that there is no evidence as to the clinic where the abortion has taken place. The allegations are vague in nature and does not support the prosecution story. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.4.2023 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 opposed the prayer for bail and submits that as per prosecution case, wife was subjected to harassment and there was assault and subsequently, forceful abortion was made. Learned AGA although does not dispute the fact that there is no injury found on the body of the injured nor during investigation it has come where the abortion has taken place. 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 there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 7. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused- applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. 8. Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail. 9. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion. 10. No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail. 11. No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if enlarged on bail. 12. It is to be seen that in the present case, general allegations have been made with regard to assault on the wife by the family members and the applicant. Subsequently, force abortion allegations have been made. No external injuries have been found and the FIR has been lodged with delay. There is no evidence as to the clinic where the abortion has taken place. The allegations are vague in nature and does not support the prosecution story. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.4.2023 13. 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. 14. Let the applicant Shaktiman Pasi involved in Case Crime No. 61 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shivkuti, District Prayagraj 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. 15. 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 :- 15.9.2023 D. Tamang Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad