Shahrukh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32268 of 2023 Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shamsher Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 334 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30663 of 2022. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after rejection of the bail application, statement of P.W.-1-Shahrukh(informant) and P.W.-2 (the victim) have been recorded. It is also submitted that while making argument at the time of first bail application, the fact that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by Rukhsana against the informant and the witnesses of present case which was registered as complaint case, in that case Rukhsana also sustained injuries. The F.I.R against the informant was not registered by the police concerned while the date and the time of the incident mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C are same to the present case. It is also submitted that since the statement of prosecutrix has been recorded and she is the star witness, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence by the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.05.2022 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- "15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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. Let the applicant Shahrukh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Order Date :- 14.12.2023 PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad