In a bail application under Section 376 IPC, the High Court refused to adjudicate on the merits of innocence but granted bail to the applicant by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.
Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1993 of 2018
Applicant :- Ranjit Singh @ Bhaiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K Singh Gaharwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ranjit Singh @ Bhaiya with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 240 of 2017, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Todi Fatehpur, District- Jhansi, during pendency of trial.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant and it has been stated therein that case no. 172 of 1972 regarding partition of Bhumidhari land under section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act was contested by grandfather of the applicant in the year 1972 against the father of the first informant and they belong to the same village.The victim is aged about 19 years as per High School Certificate and 16 years as per medical report. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2017, who is not a previous convict. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that it has
been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. Seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Ranjit Singh @ Bhaiya involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-
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 applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 4.7.2018 Atul kr. sri.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the applicant charged under Section 376 IPC should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBIReferred¶9
Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjit Singh @ Bhaiya
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
