High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, under Sections 366, 344, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bansdih Road, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2024 and following order was being passed :- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, U/S 366, 344, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Bansdih Road, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 20 years to marry her.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that the FIR is vague, as date and time of enticing away has not been mentioned therein. Learned counsel has stated that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that the applicant has forced her to marry him but she did not budged to his demand and was kept captive in her room but somehow she got herself released from the clutches of the applicant and rushed to her home. He has further stated that no corporeal relationship has been established by her with the applicant.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the criminal history of the applicant stands explained, as the applicant is on bail in the said case and the said bail orders have been annexed to the affidavit. It is further stated that Case Crime No. 56 of 2024 was instituted at the time of incarceration in jail and the applicant is not named in it.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that no bail orders in the said case has been filed by the applicant nor he has filed any application indicating that he is not wanted in the said case, as such, the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the victim, who has stated that the applicant had taken her away and kept her captive in a secluded place, coupled by the fact that the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. "

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the first bail application was rejected mainly on the ground that the applicant could not explain his criminal antecedents. The said criminal antecedent has been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 20.11.2024 filed with the second bail application as he is not wanted in the said case. The said report of the concerned police station has been filed as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim is major aged about 20 years. The allegations are per se false. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.02.2024.

6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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.

10. Let the applicant- Deepak Nat, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. It is made clear that 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. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, under Sections 366, 344, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bansdih Road, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2024 and following order was being passed :- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, U/S 366, 344, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Bansdih Road, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 20 years to marry her.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that the FIR is vague, as date and time of enticing away has not been mentioned therein. Learned counsel has stated that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that the applicant has forced her to marry him but she did not budged to his demand and was kept captive in her room but somehow she got herself released from the clutches of the applicant and rushed to her home. He has further stated that no corporeal relationship has been established by her with the applicant.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the criminal history of the applicant stands explained, as the applicant is on bail in the said case and the said bail orders have been annexed to the affidavit. It is further stated that Case Crime No. 56 of 2024 was instituted at the time of incarceration in jail and the applicant is not named in it.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that no bail orders in the said case has been filed by the applicant nor he has filed any application indicating that he is not wanted in the said case, as such, the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the victim, who has stated that the applicant had taken her away and kept her captive in a secluded place, coupled by the fact that the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. "

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the first bail application was rejected mainly on the ground that the applicant could not explain his criminal antecedents. The said criminal antecedent has been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 20.11.2024 filed with the second bail application as he is not wanted in the said case. The said report of the concerned police station has been filed as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim is major aged about 20 years. The allegations are per se false. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.02.2024.

6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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.

10. Let the applicant- Deepak Nat, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. It is made clear that 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. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad