The Allahabad High Court while granting conditional bail to the accused of raping a minor girl said that 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.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Raj Kumar.
The Applicant seeks bail in Case under section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau, during the pendency of trial.
The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years on 3.4.2024 when she had gone to her coaching class at 6.00 am.
The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.
The FIR is delayed by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
As per the High School certificate, the date of birth of the victim is stated to be 20.5.2007, as such, she comes out to be 16 years 10 months 13 days old. The victim by her appearance seems to be major. The applicant is a youth of 23 years of age.
The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement, as she has stated that she met the applicant on snapchat app and had herself called him and gone with him all the way to Surat and had married him on 5.4.2024.
The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on in the statement of the victim itself.
The victim has been arrested by police from Surat illegally. She has been shown to have been apprehended from Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau, which is far away from the place of her arrest, as such, the victim and the applicant were taken in illegal custody by the police. The prosecution story stands falsified.
There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.4.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant.
The Court observed that,
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 he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51.
AGA has not shown 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 AGA for the State.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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 Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant- Raj Kumar, 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.