Purushottam v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37691 of 2023 Applicant :- Purushottam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manoj Gaugam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0023 of 2023, U/S 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Sonakpur, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 25.3.2023 at about 12.30 pm.

¶5Learned 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. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR is delayed by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is further stated that the victim is the consenting party. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she was in love with the applicant and she was in contact with him for the last two years. It is also stated that she had gone out of her own sweet will and that both of them had married. It is next stated that the victim is major, as is evident from his physical appearance. Learned counsel has next stated that as per the school certificate, her date of birth is stated to be 5.1.2006, which makes it to be 16 years 8 months and 28 days on the date of offence.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the settled case law of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is further stated that a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant.

¶7Several 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. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

31.3.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is named in the FIR, but he could not dispute the fact that he has no criminal history.

¶9Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10Let the applicant-Purushottam who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 28.10.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad