The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is a rule, while imprisonment is an exception, requiring substantial evidence for denial.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Ms. Gunjan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 14.12.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act , Police Station Jalaun, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant in collusion with other co-accused persons on 22.07.2024 at about 4 p.m.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The allegations are per se false.

8. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet will all the way to Auraiya from where she was taken by force by the applicant to Delhi and she was sexually assaulted by the applicant.

9. It is a clear cut case of consent as the victim has not raised any alarm whatsoever during the said sojourn to Auraiya and then to Delhi.

10. The victim is major aged about 19 years.

11. 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. 12. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE :

13. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

CONCLUSION:

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

17. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

18. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 19. 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 jus