Bheem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15578

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 895 of 2025

Applicant :- Bheem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nouphil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party.

¶7

As per order dated 29th January, 2025, notice has already been served upon opposite party No.2 who has not yet put in appearance. In view thereof, the bail application is being adjudicated upon in absence of opposite party No.2.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 377, 504, 506 IPC & Section 5 (m)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Bangarmau, District Unnao.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 18th June, 2024 when the applicant allegedly enticed away the minor son of informant and committed unnatural sex with him.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that except for the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., there is no cogent evidence available against him with even the medical and F.S.L. reports not supporting the case against him. It is submitted that the applicant has been in jail since 20th June, 2024 and although charge sheet has been filed but there is no cogent evidence available against him.

¶11

Learned counsel submits that applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of counter affidavit however has submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore prima faice case against the applicant is made out.

¶13

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigatio n, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has

¶14

specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶15

"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 is 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."

¶16

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶17

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to evidence in trial, it appears that although the statement of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is similar but the medical report does not appear to support the case of prosecution. The applicant is in jail since 20th June,2024 and in view of prima facie discussion made herein above, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let applicant, Bheem, involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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

¶23

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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 prabhat

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bheem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Mangla Devi Smarak Polytechnic College Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Samar Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education and 2 Others

Chandrapal and 4 Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Mohan Vs Upziladhikari Utraula Distt. Balrampur and 5 Others

Shakir Ali @ Baure vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Adhar Yadav ( in Wria 8409 of 2011) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Vibhag Lko. and Another

Naveen Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.