Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 31754
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SALMAN – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BAIL/40961/2022
The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need to consider the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India when considering bail applications.
Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 498A IPC - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested for allegedly raping his younger brother's wife. The applicant claimed that the case was a result of a matrimonial dispute and that he was falsely implicated. The victim refused to undergo a medical examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in jail since August 6, 2022. The court also considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. & Another, which emphasized the importance of personal liberty.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail considering the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court's judgment in Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. & Another, and the overcrowding in jails.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on the condition that he would not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, and appear before the trial court on each date fixed.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40961 of 2022
Applicant :- Salman
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Keshav Dev Malviya,Amar Jeet
Upadhyay,Shailendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA
for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant, Salman, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case
Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 376
IPC, 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Bhawanpur, District-
Meerut, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence
of rape of the wife of his younger brother, informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of
false implication on account of matrimonial dispute of the couple
since the applicant is residing in same house. The applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. The victim has refused to get
herself medically examined. Therefore the alleged offence cannot
be proved before the trial court. The FIR is delayed by 50 days. The
applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing
in jail since 06.8.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot
be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any
indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again
indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above,
larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra
Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.
5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6
times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under
trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall
not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail
and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on
each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In
case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82
Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court
on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall
initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial
Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If
in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is
deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the
Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
proceed against him in accordance with law
