The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to Mohammad Kaif, accused of kidnapping and raping a minor girl.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Mohd Kaif.
Applicant seeks bail in Case under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further stated that the FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
It is further argued that the victim is the consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major although she herself has told her age to be 16 years.
Counsel for the applicant further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.04.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
Per contra, AGA has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
The Court observed,
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.
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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
It is a 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 applicant 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 the AGA.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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 Court further observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered,
Let applicant Mohd. Kaif, 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 are 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.