High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44014 of 2022 Applicant :- Amit @ Roop Kishor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant bringing on record certified copy of F.I.R. is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Amit @ Roop Kishor involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Prabhat Digitally signed by PRABHAT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.16 13:47:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1A. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 75 of 2022 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Naya Gaon, District Etah. 3. As per contents of FIR, applicant is said to have established physical relations with proseuctrix on the false pretext of marriage. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only in order to coerce him into marrying the prosecutrix. It is submitted that as per contents of F.I.R. and even the statements of prosecutrix under Sections 164 Cr.P.C., there is allegation only of consensual relationship between the parties and the aspect of promise to marry being false at the very inception and subsequent breach of promise is a matter required to be corroborated by evidence during stage of trial. Attention has been drawn to the statement of doctor concerned indicating the fact that prosecutrix has been found to be H.I.V. positive whereas the diagnostic report pertaining to applicant is H.I.V. negative. It is submitted that as such the allegations levelled against the applicant are not made out although the applicant is in jail since 17th August, 2022 with charge sheet having been filed. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application but does not dispute the factual situation 6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that although allegations of establishing physical relations on the false pretext for marriage have been indicated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but at the same time the statement of brother of prosecutrix indicates consensual nature of relationship between the two as well as the fact that applicant and his family members were earlier ready and willing to perform marriage between the two. As such the aspect of promise to marry being false with the intent to deceive at the very inception and subsequent breach of promise is a matter requiring corroboration at the stage of trial. Copies of medical reports on record also indicate the prosecutrix being H.I.V. positive although the applicant is H.I.V. negative. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."