# Satish Alias Chand v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1004
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18596 of 2024
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-alias-chand-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52176
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 363, 366 & 376 - The
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(J)2/6
- The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
-
Section
164
-
As
per
prosecution - Applicant have enticed
away the minor daughter of informant
on 13.6.2023 - Held, principle of
"Presumption of Innocence Unless
Proven Guilty," gives rise to the
concept
of
bail
as
a
rule
and
imprisonment as an exception - A
person's right to life and liberty,
guaranteed by Article 21, cannot be
taken away simply because he or she
is accused of committing an offence
until guilt is established beyond a
reasonable doubt - Challenge lies in
distinguishing between genuine cases
of exploitation and those involving
consensual relationships - It requires
a
nuanced
approach
and
careful
judicial consideration to ensure justice
- Applicant have made out a case for
bail (Para 4, 5, 11, 15, 16)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1004
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18596 of 2024

Satish Alias Chand ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Manvendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 363, 366 & 376 - The
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(J)2/6
- The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
-
Section
164
-
As
per
prosecution - Applicant have enticed
away the minor daughter of informant
on 13.6.2023 - Held, principle of
"Presumption of Innocence Unless
Proven Guilty," gives rise to the
concept
of
bail
as
a
rule
and
imprisonment as an exception - A
person's right to life and liberty,
guaranteed by Article 21, cannot be
taken away simply because he or she
is accused of committing an offence
until guilt is established beyond a
reasonable doubt - Challenge lies in
distinguishing between genuine cases
of exploitation and those involving
consensual relationships - It requires
a
nuanced
approach
and
careful
judicial consideration to ensure justice
- Applicant have made out a case for
bail (Para 4, 5, 11, 15, 16)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Jaya Mala Vs St. of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538

2. Mohd. Imran Khan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192

3. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
825

4. Ramashankar Vs St. of U.P., 2022:AHCLKO:29649

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Learned A.G.A. has informed
that notice to the informant has been served
on 10.5.2024.

3. Heard Sri Manvendra Kumar,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No.205 of 2023, under Sections 363,
366, 376 I.P.C. and 5(J)2/6 POCSO Act,
Police Station- Barahaj, District- Deoria,
during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. As per prosecution story, the
applicant is stated to have enticed away the
minor daughter of the informant on
13.6.2023 at about 04:00 p.m.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
(Arguments
on
behalf
of
applicant)

6. Learned counsel for the
applicant has stated that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The FIR is
delayed by about four days and there is no
7 All. Satish Alias Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1005
proper explanation of the said delay caused.
The victim is a consenting party which is
but evident from her statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and as per her
own statement she was 18 years old.

7. It is further argued that the
victim did not raise any alarm during the
said sojourn to Deoria and thereupon to
Surat, Gujarat which categorically indicates
her consent. It is further argued that the
victim and applicant were madly in love
with each other and out of fear of their
parents had eloped and solemnized their
marriage at a temple which is not
registered. The applicant and the victim
belong to the same village and were
neighbours. The victim was pregnant by six
months at that time and is stated to have
given birth to a female child about four
months back. He further argued that the
applicant proposes to rear his child as he is
the father and he is very much willing to
keep his married wife and the newborn
baby with him.

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. There is no
criminal history of the applicant. The
applicant is languishing in jail since
5.1.2024. In case, the applicant is released
on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail.
(Arguments
on
behalf
of
State/Opposite party)

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
vehemently opposed the bail application
but has not disputed the fact that out of the
said union of the couple, a baby girl was
born and she is more than four months old
at present, who is being taken care of by
the parents of the victim, although he has
not disputed the fact that the applicant has
no criminal history.

CONCLUSION:

10. Admittedly, the age of the
victim is 18 years as per the ossification
test report. The Supreme Court in Jaya
Mala vs. State of J & K1 and Mohd.
Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)2 has been opined that the radiologist
cannot predict the correct date of birth
rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years
on either side.

11. 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. A
person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
cannot be taken away simply because he or
she 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
reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another3.
Learned
AGA
has
not
shown
any
exceptional circumstances which would
warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

12. 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
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 for the State.

13. This Court earlier on in the
case of Ramashankar vs. State of U.P.4
has observed as under:

"9. In this conservative and
non-permissive society, it is true
that marriage in the same village is
prohibited and is not customary,
and it may be an after effect of
media and cinema. Instances of
marriage in the same village are on
the rise. This does adversely affect
the social fabric. Both the accused
and the victim are of very young
age and have barely attained the
age of majority. A baby girl has
been born out of their wedlock.
Though, the marriage may not be
described as per the law of the land,
but the Court has to apply a
pragmatic
approach
in
such
conditions and indeed both the
families
are
required
to
act
practically. A lot of water has flown
down the Ganges. Now, it's time to
move ahead.
10. The youth in their
tender age become victim to the
legal parameters though rightly
framed by the legislature, but here
this Court is being drawn to make
an exception in the extraordinary
circumstances of the case. The life
of a newborn child is at stake. She
cannot to be left to face the stigma
during her life.
11.
The
mathematical
permutations
and
combinations
have to be done away with. A
hypertechnical
and
mechanical
approach shall do no good to the
parties and why should an innocent
baby out of no fault of her bear the
brutalities of the society in the
present
circumstances.
Human
psychosis and that too of the
adolescents has to be taken into
account.
12. This Court in the case
of Atul Mishra vs. State of U.P.
And 3 others5, has also done away
with the stringent provisions of the
P.O.C.S.O. Act under the extraordinary
circumstances
of
the
case."

14. This court has every now and
then expressed concern regarding the
application of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on
adolescents. While the Act's primary
objective is to protect children under the
age
of
majority
(18)
from
sexual
exploitation, there are cases where it has
been misused, particularly in consensual
romantic relationships between teenage
persons. When addressing these cases, it is
crucial to:

A. Assess the Context:
Each case should be evaluated on
its
individual
facts
and
circumstances. The nature of the
relationship and the intentions of
both parties should be carefully
examined.
B.
Consider
Victim's
Statement: The statement of the
alleged victim should be given due
consideration. If the relationship is
consensual and based on mutual
affection, this should be factored
into decisions regarding bail and
prosecution.
7 All. Satish Alias Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1007
C. Avoid Perversity of
Justice: Ignoring the consensual
nature of a relationship can lead to
unjust outcomes, such as wrongful
imprisonment. The judicial system
should
aim
to
balance
the
protection of minors with the
recognition of their autonomy in
certain contexts. Here the age
comes out to be an important
factor.
D.
Judicial
Discretion:
Courts should use their discretion
wisely,
ensuring
that
the
application of POCSO does not
inadvertently
harm
the
very
individuals it is meant to protect.

15.

The
challenge
lies
in
distinguishing between genuine cases of
exploitation and those involving consensual
relationships. This requires a nuanced
approach and careful judicial consideration
to ensure justice is served appropriately.

16. 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.

17. Let the applicant- Satish Alias
Chand 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 is being
released on bail on the assurance
of the learned counsel for the
applicant that he is very much
willing to take care of his wife
(victim) and the infant. The
applicant shall deposit (fixed
deposit) a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in
the name of new born child of the
victim till her attaining the age of
majority within a period of six
months from the date of release
from jail.
(ii) The applicant will not
tamper with the evidence during
the trial.
(iii) The applicant will not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution witness.
(iv) The applicant will
appear before the trial court on the
date fixed, unless personal presence
is exempted.
(v) The applicant shall not
commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused, or
suspected of the commission of
which he is suspected.
(vi) 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 or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.

18. 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.

19.
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
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1008
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 24630 of 2024

Ravindra Singh Rathaur ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sandeep Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

A. (Criminal Law-The Indian Penal Code1860-Sections 328, 376, 323, 344, 354-C,
384, 504 & 506) (Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
439)-
It
is
impossible
for
an
inexperienced
man
to
anaesthetise
a
sleeping
person
without
disturbance, so as to substitute artificial sleep
for natural sleep. Hence the story often
published in the lay press of a woman having
been rendered suddenly unconscious by a
handkerchief soaked in chloroform held over her
face and then raped is not to be believed-

B. A 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. 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. (Para
13, 14 & 16)
Bail Application allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & ors., 2022
(10) SCC 51

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material available on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections
328, 376, 323, 344, 354-C, 384, 504, 506 of
I.P.C., Police Station - Dadri, District -
Gautam
Buddha
Nagar,
during
the
pendency of trial.

Prosecution Story:

3. The applicant is stated to have
entered into corporeal relationship with the
informant and had even performed fake
marriage with her in the year 2022. The
applicant is also stated to have concealed
the fact that he already had two siblings
from his first marriage.

4. It is alleged that the informant
had earlier instituted the FIR No.474 of
2022, u/s 366 of IPC against him in which
police filed a closure report on account of
her own statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
The applicant is stated to have rendered the
informant intoxicated and thereafter her
statement has been recorded by the
Magistrate. The applicant is even stated to
have filed a habeas corpus Writ Petition
No. 517 of 2023 before this Court although
the same was dismissed.

5. The applicant had threatened the
informant to make the indecent videos of