The presumption of innocence and right to liberty under Article 21 mandates that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, especially in cases lacking substantial evidence against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Affidavit of compliance filed by learned A.G.A. today, is taken on record.

3. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 4.11.2024.

4. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Devottam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 197 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 61(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

6. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that his 16- year old daughter had left for college on 10.9.2024 at 9.00 am and did not return till the evening. After taking up frantic search, it was revealed that the applicant in collusion with the co-accused person Rikhimuni Pandey had enticed away his minor daughter.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

7. 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.

8. The FIR is delayed by four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

9. The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has categorically stated that she was in love with the applicant. She has also stated that the applicant had promised to marry her, as such, she left her house in the morning of 10.9.2024 at about 10.00 am and went with the applicant to Gujarat and stayed there in the house of his maternal uncle. She had established corporeal relationship with the applicant on the said promise of marriage only.

10. The victim in her statement recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S. has categorically stated that she is 18 years old and she had left her house after being scolded by her parents. The said statement is contradictory to the FIR and her statement recorded u /s 183 B.N.S.S.

11. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as the victim had not sustained any injury, whatsoever.

12. The applicant alongwith his maternal aunt and uncle had taken her back to her native place after coming to know about the instant FIR. She has further stated that her parents are also ready to marry her off.

13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.9.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

14. The bail application has been opposed but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant has not been disputed.

CONCLUSION:

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simp