Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Mukesh Ram – Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others - Opposite Parties
Criminal MISC. Bail Application No. 26706 Of 2024
Decided On : 06-08-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376 - POCSO Act - Sections 5L/6 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for serious charges - Presumption of innocence upheld; bail granted based on lack of criminal history and absence of flight risk - Court emphasizes right to life and liberty under Article 21. (Paras 12, 14)
(B) Bail - Principle of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception - No exceptional circumstances presented to deny bail - Court reiterates that the object of bail is to secure attendance at trial. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of enticing away a minor and seeks bail, claiming false implication and lack of evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
The applicant has made out a case for bail considering the circumstances and absence of a criminal history.
Issues: The main issues were the applicant's right to bail and the absence of evidence suggesting flight risk.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 necessitate granting bail in the absence of compelling reasons to deny it.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
1. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 13.07.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Shashi Bhushan Kunwar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 58 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and Sections 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Sikanderpur, District - Ballia, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant in the night of 06.03.2024.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.
6. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
7. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that the victim herself had taken away Rs. 80,000/- and several ornaments from her house along with her. The victim has stated that she had married the applicant.
8. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major as her date of birth is stated to be 19.01.2007.
9. 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.
10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:
11. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
CONCLUSION:
12. 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. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
13. 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 AGA.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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.
15. Let the applicant- Mukesh Ram, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 necessitate granting bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is a rule, not a punishment; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the presumption of innocence must be upheld until proven guilty.
Bail is a rule, not a punishment; the presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception, grounded in the presumption of innocence and the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in bail applications, reinforcing that bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception.
Bail should be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist; presumption of innocence prevails until proven guilty.
Bail is a rule, imprisonment an exception; the right to liberty must be upheld unless substantial grounds justify denial.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception, highlighting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld until guilt is proven.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
