Sohel vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52947

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4163 of 2025

Applicant :- Sohel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishore Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 24.02.2025.

¶8

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri Raj Kishore Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.716 of 2024, under Sections 376(3), 506 I.P.C. & 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim has been examined as P.W.1 and informant as P.W.2, both have not supported the prosecution story and they have turned hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no

¶13

criminal history of the applicant and the witnesses have turned hostile.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

¶16

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

¶17

Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶18

It is 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 learned State Law Officer.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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 bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Sohel , involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Priya

¶26

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sohel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Alias Raju vs State of U.P.

Shahzade vs State of U.P.

Umashankar Dharkar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rinku vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sikandra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others