High Court · 2025

1. List has been revised. Since both the bail applications arise out of the same FIR, the same are being heard and decided by a common order. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 30.9.2024 and 20.9.2024 respectively.

2. Heard Sri Pranvesh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri V.P. Singh and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.As. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2022, U/S 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Airwakatra, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per prosecution story, the two daughters of the informant, namely, victims V1 and V2 are stated to have been enticed away by one Golu alongwith one unknown person on 23.10.2022. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS:

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. It is stated that they have nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no mentioning of any time of offence in the FIR.

6. The two victims, V1 and V2 had run away with the applicants, who happen to be the real brothers. The victim V1, in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., has stated that she was raped upon by the applicants and was purchased by them through his uncle (Fufa) Santram. The said allegations are per se false, as the two documents regarding the date of birth were procured by the prosecution, which mentions the age of the victim V1 to be 10.4.2008 and the victim V2 to be 12.5.2008, which is not possible by any scientific means, as such, the prosecution story is false.

7. The victim V2 has categorically stated that she was 19 years old and that the applicant Sunil @ Kale had come to see her for marriage but the families had fallen apart but she wanted to marry the applicant only and had gone with him out of her own sweet will and had married him. A baby boy has been born out of the said wedlock and has expressed her willingness to spend her life with the applicant Sunil @ Kale. Under the circumstances, the prosecution story stands falsified.

8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.

9. Both the applicants are languishing in jail since 15.6.2024 having no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

10. The bail application has been opposed, but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicants and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicants has not been disputed. CONCLUSION:

11. 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.10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

12. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

14. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

15. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the age of the victims, as stated by the prosecution, is unbelievable and the FIR itself stands falsified from the statement of the victim V2, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicants- Govind and Sunil @ Kale involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 following conditions. (i) The applicants 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./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

19. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. List has been revised. Since both the bail applications arise out of the same FIR, the same are being heard and decided by a common order. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 30.9.2024 and 20.9.2024 respectively.

2. Heard Sri Pranvesh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri V.P. Singh and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.As. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2022, U/S 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Airwakatra, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per prosecution story, the two daughters of the informant, namely, victims V1 and V2 are stated to have been enticed away by one Golu alongwith one unknown person on 23.10.2022. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS:

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. It is stated that they have nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no mentioning of any time of offence in the FIR.

6. The two victims, V1 and V2 had run away with the applicants, who happen to be the real brothers. The victim V1, in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., has stated that she was raped upon by the applicants and was purchased by them through his uncle (Fufa) Santram. The said allegations are per se false, as the two documents regarding the date of birth were procured by the prosecution, which mentions the age of the victim V1 to be 10.4.2008 and the victim V2 to be 12.5.2008, which is not possible by any scientific means, as such, the prosecution story is false.

7. The victim V2 has categorically stated that she was 19 years old and that the applicant Sunil @ Kale had come to see her for marriage but the families had fallen apart but she wanted to marry the applicant only and had gone with him out of her own sweet will and had married him. A baby boy has been born out of the said wedlock and has expressed her willingness to spend her life with the applicant Sunil @ Kale. Under the circumstances, the prosecution story stands falsified.

8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.

9. Both the applicants are languishing in jail since 15.6.2024 having no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

10. The bail application has been opposed, but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicants and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicants has not been disputed. CONCLUSION:

11. 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.10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

12. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

14. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

15. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the age of the victims, as stated by the prosecution, is unbelievable and the FIR itself stands falsified from the statement of the victim V2, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicants- Govind and Sunil @ Kale involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 following conditions. (i) The applicants 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./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

19. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad