Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Rachit Soni Alias Pakko Soni Alias … vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:60015
Court No. – 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 10449 of 2024
Applicant :- Rachit Soni Alias Pakko Soni Alias Suresh Soni
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gunjan Sharma
Hon’ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I apprised the Court that on 13.03.2024 notice has been served to the informant of the case. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant, however, Mrs. Gunjan Sharma, Advocate, appeared on behalf of High Court Legal Services along with learned AGA-I for the State.
2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State and Mrs. Gunjan Sharma, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 573 of 2023, under Sections 377, 504, 506 IPC 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Baberu, District- Banda, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to FIR, applicant committed unnatural sexual offence against the son of the informant aged about 8 years.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no evidence against the applicant on record. He further submitted that even victim has not been medically examined. He further submitted that however, victim in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclosed the name of the applicant but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he did not even disclose the name of the applicant.
6. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in paragraph no. 18 of the instant bail application. He further submitted that in case under Section 302 IPC, applicant has already been acquitted by the trial court way back in the year 2012 and in two other case, applicant is on bail and both the cases are old one. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 20.12.2023.
7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Services however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that there is no medical report of the victim on record and victim did not disclose the name of the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. However, as per the allegation, applicant committed Sodomy against the son of the informant aged about 8 years and victim also stated against the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but when statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then he did not disclose the name of the applicant. Further, there is no medical report of victim on record to strengthen the prosecution case.
10. Further, however, it appears that apart from the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of three other cases but all the cases were old one and in case under Section 302 IPC, applicant has already been acquitted by the trial court on 09.05.2012 and in remaining two cases, applicant is on bail, however, it reflects that one case is for the offence under Section 377 IPC but this case is of the year 2004.
11. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused his bail application should not be dismissed.
12. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.12.2023.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant- Rachit Soni Alias Pakko Soni Alias Suresh Soni be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 5.4.2024
KK Patel
