In a criminal bail application under IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court granted bail to the accused, emphasizing that deprivation of liberty should be an exception and noting delays in investigation.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124470
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12336 of 2023
Applicant :- Virendra @ Veeru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anshul Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Maya Ram
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
submitted that the prosecutrix is a minor girl and in the medical examination her age has been ascertained about 16 years. In her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC the prosecutrix has specifically stated that on several occasions the present applicant has committed rape against her. The informant has himself seen the applicant alongwith the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that ample evidence has been collected against the present applicant during the course of investigation. He has committed rape with a minor victim, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to
ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
8. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"21. In bail applications, generally, 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. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
Order Date :- 6.6.2023
safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges involving a minor victim.
Whether the significant delay in FIR registration and medical examination impacts the bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. K.A. NajeebRelied on¶14
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶15
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 · Who else cites this
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶17
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 · Who else cites this
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶19
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Virendra @ Veeru
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
