IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Krishan Pahal, J.
Sani - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46721 of 2024
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) POCSO Act - Section 9 - Child Marriage Act - Section 5 - Bail application - The applicant sought bail in a case involving serious charges, asserting innocence and claiming false implication due to a delayed FIR. The victim refuted allegations, stating she left voluntarily. The applicant has no criminal history and has been in custody since August 2024. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is a rule, while imprisonment is an exception. (Paras 3, 10, 11, 12, 15)
(B) Right to Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution - The court reiterated that a person's right to life and liberty cannot be infringed without due process and established that bail should not be withheld as punishment. (Paras 11, 12)
(C) Conditions for Bail - The court set conditions for bail, including the applicant's attendance at trial and prohibition against tampering with evidence. (Paras 16, 17)
JUDGMENT :
Krishan Pahal, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 31.12.2024.
2. Heard Sri Sanskar Gaur, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 478 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 65(1), 64(F) B.N.S. and 5N/6 POCSO Act and Section 9 of Child Marriage Act , Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 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. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that the allegations made in the FIR are false. The FIR is delayed by five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. It is stated that the victim has refuted the allegations made in the FIR, rather, she has stated that she had gone out of her own sweet will to the house of her Aunt (bua) and stayed there.
6. 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. 7. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 .
12. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized 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”.
13. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. 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.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the presumption of innocence must be upheld until 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.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception; presumption of innocence must guide bail decisions.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty.
Bail is a rule, not a punishment; the presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty, with conditions set to ensure trial attendance.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in bail applications, reinforcing that bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception; the presumption of innocence prevails until proven guilty.
Bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld until guilt is proven.
Bail is granted based on the presumption of innocence, highlighting that imprisonment should be an exception, not a rule, under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the presumption of innocence must be upheld until proven guilty.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.