Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Krishan Pahal, J.
Banti – Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46629 of 2024
Decided On : 11-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma
For the Respondent: G.A.

Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception, highlighting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 333, 65(1), 351(2) B.N.S. and POCSO Act - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during the pendency of trial for allegedly outraging the modesty of a minor - Delay in FIR and lack of evidence of rape were highlighted as key factors. (Paras 5, 10, 16)

(B) Presumption of Innocence - The principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is emphasized, establishing bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. (Paras 15, 17)

(C) Right to Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty, which cannot be denied without due process. (Paras 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of outraging the modesty of a 13-year-old minor, with allegations of false implication due to prior altercations. The FIR was delayed, and the victim's statements lacked evidence of rape.

Findings of Court:
The applicant has made out a case for bail, with no exceptional circumstances shown to warrant denial.

Issues: The main issues addressed included the delay in FIR, victim's consent, and the presumption of innocence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that bail should not be denied as a punishment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the requirement for a prima facie case.

Result: Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 19.12.2024.

3. Heard Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.209 of 2024, under Sections 333, 65(1), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Hasayan, District- Hathras, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant aged about 13 years by barging into his house. The said act was seen by the son of the informant, as such, the applicant is stated to have run away by threatening on 11.10.2024 at about 01:00 a.m.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. The FIR is delayed by about fourteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. The FIR does not mention that victim was raped up, although, it is stated that applicant had done some indecent act with her. The allegations have been escalated to that of rape in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S.

9. The consent of the victim is but evident from the fact that she has stated that her clothes were not torn and she was disrobed by the applicant. The said statement also states that she did not sustain any injury whatsoever rather she has further stated that her family had an altercation with the applicant earlier on also, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

10. It is true that the age of the victim was found to be 14-15 years as per the ossification test report, but by her looks she seems to be major.

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 15.10.2024 and 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/OPPOSITE PARTY:

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 “ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document