Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL,J.

Azhar Anis Usmani - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2567 of 2025
Decided on : 21-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kavish Suhail
For the Respondent: G.A.

Bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376-D - Bail application in a case of alleged gang rape - Applicant seeks bail during the pendency of trial, arguing false implication and violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution - Delay in FIR and lack of medical corroboration highlighted. (Paras 5, 10, 15)

(B) Principle of Bail - The court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty. (Paras 14, 16)

(C) Delays in Trial - The court notes the delay in trial and the completion of the victim's examination-in-chief, which warrants consideration for bail. (Paras 19)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, accused of gang rape, claims false implication, citing a nine-month delay in the FIR and no medical evidence to support the allegations. The victim's examination has not been completed, raising concerns about the trial's pace.

Findings of Court:
The court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail and acknowledges the applicant's right to liberty under Article 21.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the delay in filing the FIR, the applicant's claims of false implication, and the fundamental rights concerning the trial's progress.

Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the presumption of innocence must prevail, and bail should not be denied without substantial grounds.

Result: Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 25.7.2024.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, U/S 376-D IPC , Police Station Cantt, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by nine months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The victim major, aged about 27 years. There is no medical corroboration of the allegations made in the FIR.

7. The victim has escalated the allegations in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The examination-in-chief of the victim was going on but the same could not be completed on 19.2.2024 because of non-availability of her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and subsequent to it, the said examination-in-chief has not been completed as yet, despite the coercive measures being taken against her. The victim had once recalled the N.B.W. issued against her. It is a clear-cut case of false implication and exploitation of the applicant, as the victim had visited in jail and met him 16 times. The said fact stands fortified from Annexure-5 filed with the the bail application.

8. 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.

9. There is a criminal history of three more cases assigned to the applicant, which stands explained, as he is yet to apply for bail in those cases. In one case, he was enlarged on interim bail but the same was rejected for want of prosecution, as the applicant went to jail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.9.2023.

10. The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated, as even the examination-in-chief of the informant/victim P.W. 1 has not been completed. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future, as it is moving at a snail's pace. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

11. The bail application has been opposed but the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant has not been disputed.

CONCLUSION:

12. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

13. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

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 l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document