Allahabad High Court
Adarsh Sachan @ Keshav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 April, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59480 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5235 of 2025 Applicant :- Adarsh Sachan @ Keshav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankit Singh,G.A.,Lalit Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suraj Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Session Case No.1859/2024, arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)5 & 3(2)5ka SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sajeti, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant and co-accused persons are stated to have tried to abduct the victim on 23.4.2024 at about 10:0 p.m. by barging into her house and had beaten her family members. They are even stated to have abducted the daughter of the informant the same night. On 27.4.2024 the complaint is stated to have been given by the victim to the Additional Police Commissioner, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar, but no action was taken. There are other allegations against the applicant in the detailed FIR.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. The victim was recovered and she refused to go to her parental house, as such, she was sent to women welfare center and was released from there on 2.5.2024 and thereafter she went to her parental home.
7. The application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant on 17.5.2024 which is also delayed by about 15 days from the said release of the victim and is also delayed by about one month from the date of incident. The FIR was instituted on 29.7.2024.
8. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no medical report of any of the family members of the informant either.
9. The Investigating Officer after thorough investigation had exonerated the six other co-accused persons and filed a final report against the father of the applicant, which are minor offences triable by the Magistrate.
10. It is true that victim is minor, but it is a clear cut case of false implication as there is no medical corroboration of the incident as no injury was sustained by the victim.
11. 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.
12. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit dated 10.3.2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.9.2024 and 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/OPPOSITE PARTY:
13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that victim was minor. The applicant is an influential person and the family of the victim belongs to Scheduled Castes community, as such, the FIR was not instituted.
CONCLUSION:
14. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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?.
19. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
20. 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 State Law Officer.
21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and the FIR being instituted after a delay of 15 days from the date of release of victim from the women welfare center 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.
22. Let the applicant- Adarsh Sachan @ Keshav 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
Order Date :- 21.4.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)