Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 512 (ALL)

Azhar Anis Usmani v. State of U. P.

2025-03-21

KRISHAN PAHAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Krishan Pahal, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 25.7.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, U/S 376-D IPC , Police Station Cantt, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 5. 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by nine months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. The victim major, aged about 27 years. There is no medical corroboration of the allegations made in the FIR. 7. The victim has escalated the allegations in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The examination-in-chief of the victim was going on but the same could not be completed on 19.2.2024 because of non-availability of her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and subsequent to it, the said examination-in-chief has not been completed as yet, despite the coercive measures being taken against her. The victim had once recalled the N.B.W. issued against her. It is a clear-cut case of false implication and exploitation of the applicant, as the victim had visited in jail and met him 16 times. The said fact stands fortified from Annexure-5 filed with the the bail application. 8. 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. 9. There is a criminal history of three more cases assigned to the applicant, which stands explained, as he is yet to apply for bail in those cases. In one case, he was enlarged on interim bail but the same was rejected for want of prosecution, as the applicant went to jail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.9.2023. 10. There is a criminal history of three more cases assigned to the applicant, which stands explained, as he is yet to apply for bail in those cases. In one case, he was enlarged on interim bail but the same was rejected for want of prosecution, as the applicant went to jail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.9.2023. 10. The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated, as even the examination-in-chief of the informant/victim P.W. 1 has not been completed. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future, as it is moving at a snail's pace. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 11. The bail application has been opposed but the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant has not been disputed. CONCLUSION: 12. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 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 16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized 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”. 17. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 18. 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. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in trial and also delay in institution of the FIR, 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. 20. Let the applicant- Azhar Anis Usmani 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. The bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Azhar Anis Usmani 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. 21. 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. 22. 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.