Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 271 (ALL)

Satul Alias Mahendra Kumar v. State of U. P.

2025-02-11

KRISHAN PAHAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Krishan Pahal, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 254 of 2024, under Sections 108, 64(1), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have taken certain indecent photographs and video of the victim and had started blackmailing her subsequently, and had even extorted lacs of rupees from her thereby had drawn the victim to commit suicide. The victim had committed suicide on 01.09.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT : 5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. The cause of death was found to be to Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. 7. No overt act has been assigned to the applicant of having abeted the victim to commit suicide. 8. Although, it is true that the register was found of which, name of the applicant is present whereby it is mentioned that the applicant and other co-accused persons have raped her. 9. 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. 10. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE : 11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the name of the applicant was found on the register in the writing of the victim. CONCLUSION: 12. 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. CONCLUSION: 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 . 15. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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". 16. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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 19. Let the applicant- Satul Alias Mahendra Kumar involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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./351 B.N.S.S. 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. 20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 21. It 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.