High Court · 2025

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39383 of 2024 Applicant :- Khaleel Ahmed And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhyudaya Tripathi,Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Tripathi,Shantanu Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 396 of 2022, U/S 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Dhampur, District- Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per the allegations in the FIR, the applicants alongwith co- accused person Afzal are stated to have barged into the house of the informant in the night of 24.12.2021 at about 11.30 pm and committed gang-rape with her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS:

5. 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. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence. The victim is obviously major, as she is a married lady.

6. The FIR is delayed by about ten months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. Even the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved on 8.9.2022 and the compliance of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. is stated to have been made on 1.9.2022, which itself is delayed by about eight months, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The investigating officer was pleased to file a closure report in the instant case on 9.1.2023 but subsequent to the filing of protest petition by the informant on 21.8.2023, the applicants have been summoned on 2.1.2024 by the court concerned.

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. The applicants are languishing in jail since 19.9.2024, 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 State Law Officer 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 State Law Officer.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and 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- Khaleel Ahmed and Saeed Ahmed 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 :- 13.2.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39383 of 2024 Applicant :- Khaleel Ahmed And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhyudaya Tripathi,Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Tripathi,Shantanu Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 396 of 2022, U/S 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Dhampur, District- Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per the allegations in the FIR, the applicants alongwith co- accused person Afzal are stated to have barged into the house of the informant in the night of 24.12.2021 at about 11.30 pm and committed gang-rape with her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS:

5. 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. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence. The victim is obviously major, as she is a married lady.

6. The FIR is delayed by about ten months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. Even the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved on 8.9.2022 and the compliance of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. is stated to have been made on 1.9.2022, which itself is delayed by about eight months, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The investigating officer was pleased to file a closure report in the instant case on 9.1.2023 but subsequent to the filing of protest petition by the informant on 21.8.2023, the applicants have been summoned on 2.1.2024 by the court concerned.

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. The applicants are languishing in jail since 19.9.2024, 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 State Law Officer 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 State Law Officer.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and 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- Khaleel Ahmed and Saeed Ahmed 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 :- 13.2.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad