Back
1996 Supreme(All) 1419
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Virendra Saran
RAJESH GUPTA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 14 December 1996
Criminal Misc. Case No. 4231 (B) of 1998
Personal liberty cannot be curtailed for the inaction of the prosecuting agency.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Prosecuting Agency's Lethargic Attitude - Personal Liberty
Fact of the Case:
The prosecuting agency showed lethargic attitude in opposing the bail application, and the court was not inclined to grant further time to the State. The applicant was involved in a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to the prosecutrix's pregnancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecuting agency's inaction should not curtail the personal liberty of a citizen. It considered the circumstances of the case, including the age of the prosecutrix and medical evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the lethargic attitude of the prosecuting agency in opposing the bail application and its impact on the personal liberty of the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed due to the inaction of the prosecuting agency. It considered the circumstances of the case, including the age of the prosecutrix and medical evidence, in granting bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the learned CJM Sultanpur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Learned Government Advocate states that he has not received any instruc tions to oppose the bail application. Notice of the bail application was given on 1st December, 1998 and the case is from neighbouring district Sultanpur. It is yet another case in which the prosecuting agency has adopted a lethargic attitude in opposing bail application and I am not inclined to grant further time to the State. In a large number of bail matters instruc tions are not coming. It is for the con cerned police authorities to look into the matter and ensure that instructions are received by the Government Advocate in time. However, personal liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed for the inaction of the prosecuting agency.
3. The facts and circumstances of the case go to show that the prosecutrix was having some affair with the applicant and she had written letter to the applicant that she had become pregnant. It further ap pears that the age of the prosecutrix is around 18 years. Epiphysis of the elbow joints had fused whereas epiphysis of the lower end of radius and ulra had not been fused. According to the table of fusions given in the Modis Medical Jurispru dence fusion of wrist joints takes place at the age of 19years in Uttar Pradesh.
4. Let applicant Rajesh Gupta, in volved in crime No. 374 of 1998 under Sections, 363/366/367/368/376 IPC of PS. Amethi district Sultanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM Sultanpur.
Bail granted.
.
