IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sameer Jain, J.
Manish Ahirwar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1709 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(N) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5 and 6 - Bail application for offences under IPC and POCSO Act - Applicant previously granted bail for IPC Section 376 - New charges under POCSO Act added - No criminal history - Applicant in custody since 08.09.2024 - Court finds grounds for bail based on previous release and lack of opposition on merits. (Paras 3, 4, 9, 10)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - Consideration of earlier bail granted and absence of criminal history - Court emphasizes that observations are limited to bail application and do not affect trial merits. (Paras 10, 13)
JUDGMENT :
Sameer Jain, J.
1. Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that notice has been served upon the informant on 14.01.2025. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 472 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(N) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier applicant had already been released on bail by this Court in the present matter under Section 376 IPC vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 41724 of 2024 but after investigation charge-sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(N) IPC and when applicant applied for bail before the court concerned for these offences then his bail application has been dismissed.
5. He further submits that as earlier after considering the entire facts of the case applicant had already been released on bail in the present matter, therefore, he should also be released on bail for added offences.
6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 08.09.2024.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. Considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that earlier in the present matter after considering the entire facts of the case, applicant has already been released on bail for offences under Section 376 IPC, in my view, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail for added offences too.
10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed
11. Let the applicant-Manish Ahirwar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Bail can be granted for additional charges if the applicant has previously been released on bail and lacks a criminal history.
The court emphasized that individual circumstances, such as the duration of incarceration and absence of a criminal history, are crucial in deciding bail applications.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and insufficient evidence against him, emphasizing the rights under Article 21.
The court held that prior criminal history does not automatically preclude bail if the circumstances warrant it, emphasizing the need for parity with co-accused and considering the duration of custod....
The court established that the absence of substantial evidence against an accused, particularly when not named in the FIR, is a significant factor in granting bail.
The court granted bail to the applicant based on parity with a co-accused released on bail, considering the duration of custody and nature of offences.
The court may grant bail based on the assertion of innocence and lack of dispute from the opposing counsel, without affecting the merits of the case.
Bail is a rule, not a punishment; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The principle of 'Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty' underpins the right to bail, and the burden lies on the prosecution to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail....
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.