In a criminal bail application involving allegations of enticing away a minor, the High Court held that the case is fit for the grant of bail after considering the statutory factors under the Constitution and established precedents.
The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of 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. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8137 of 2021
Applicant :- Pankaj @ Rishikant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Wahid Jamal,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Pankaj @ Rishikant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0353 of 2020, under Sections 363, 368, 120B I.P.C. and Section 9/10 Protection of Children From Sexual Offense Act 2012, Police Station- Chattari, DistrictBulandshahar, during pendency of trial.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per allegations made in F.I.R dated 09.09.2020, in the intervening night of 05./06.09.2020, daughter of the informant is enticed away from the house of the informant by the applicant and this fact came to the knowledge of the informant after hearing recording of the mobile phone. F.I.R. has been lodged on false and frivolous allegations. During investigation, statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has not supported the prosecution version rather stating that she has gone to the house of the applicant on her own free will. It is next submitted that the no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in S. Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942 as the victim herself left her house and went with the applicant. She was not enticed away by the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant except to the aforesaid case. Charge sheet has also been filed on 06.11.2020, hence, the applicant is no more required for the purpose of investigation.
It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 21.09.2020, undertakes that he will not misuse the
liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of 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, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let applicant, Pankaj @ Rishikant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 16.9.2021 aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a case involving accusations of enticing away a minor.
Whether the applicant satisfies the bail requirements under Article 21 of the Constitution despite the nature of charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Varadrajan Vs. State of MadrasReferred¶7
S. Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ BaliayApplied¶11
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public ProsecutorApplied¶11
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Pankaj @ Rishikant
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
