Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56693 of 2022 Applicant :- Guljama Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
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, Guljama, 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. Digitally signed by SUBODH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.14 21:07:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Subodh/-
Arguments
1. 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.296 of 2022, under Sections 376D, 452, 342, 504, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur. 3. As per contents of FIR, the first informant was earlier married to co- accused Shadab from whom a son was born. Thereafter due to matrimonial dispute, divorce was effected between the two, whereafter the first informant subsequently married one Waseem Ahmad in the year 2020 and started residing with him in Delhi. It is stated that thereafter her first husband started dispute regarding custody of her son and it was in that consequence that he and the applicant came to her house on 21.07.2022 at about 06.30. P.M. whereafter the co-accused, first husband Shadab committed rape upon her while the applicant stood guard outside the house. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of matrimonial and custodial dispute between co-accused Shadab and the first informant. It is submitted that FIR has been lodged only with intention of creating pressure upon the co-accused to give up his custodial rights over son of first informant. It is submitted that there is no eye witness account and even medical report does not corroborate charges levelled against the applicant who even otherwise is not accused of committing rape upon first informant. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that statements of prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborate the contents of FIR. 6. 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." 7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that there is no allegation against the applicant of having committed rape upon the prosecutrix and from a narration of the FIR as well as statements of prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., custodial battle between the first informant and co-accused Shadab appears to be underway. There does not appear to be any eye witness account and medical report also does not appear to support the allegations levelled. Applicant is in jail since 10.10.2022.