Tejveer Rawat vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1569 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3812 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Tejveer Rawat
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahipal Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Sengar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Tejveer Rawat under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 880 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 376-D and 328 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura during the pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Court No.1, Mathura, vide order dated 17.1.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 24.11.2021 has been lodged by the brother of the victim against the applicant under Section 376 I.P.C., stating that on 23.11.2021, sister of the first informant had gone to Agra for taking U.P. S.I. Examination and returned at 9:45 P.M. on the same day. The victim told to the first informant that on 23.11.2021 at 11:00 A.M., the victim has gone to Agra with the applicant by a white swift car. The examination time was 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. After the examination, the victim was returning by said car. On the way, the applicant started molestation with the victim in running car, the victim obstructed, after that the applicant committed rape with her after sniffing some intoxicated substance. At that time, friend of the applicant was driving the car and dropped the victim at Nand Gaon Bridge and they fled away. The first informant admitted the victim in a hospital for treatment.

After lodging of the first information report, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim has been recorded on 24.11.2021. The first medical examination has been conducted on 24.11.2021 at 00:45 hours at CHC, Kosikalan and second medical examination has also been conducted on 24.11.2021 at 4:00 P.M. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded on 26.11.2021. After recording the statement of the victim and other witnesses by the Investigating Officer, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Digamber on 15.12.2021. The applicant was arrested on 25.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The victim has M.Sc. Degree and she was admittedly major at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that as per allegation of first information report, the victim and the applicant know to each other prior to the incident and they are facebook friends. As per statement of the victim that they call to each other time to time and they took food in Dhaba (Hotel). She did not know the name of the hotel. It is further submitted that there is no evidence with regard to admission of victim in hospital. It is further argued that there is no allegation regarding committing mar-peet with the victim but as per first medical report dated 24.11.2021 conducted on 00:45 hours, two contusions one on left side of cheek and second maxillary process were found on the body of the victim, but, the duration of aforesaid, injuries was prior to four to five hours, which has not been explained by the prosecution and the same are also not connected to the incident. In second medical report dated 24.11.2021 conducted on 4:56 P.M., no external injury was found on the person of the victim.

It is further submitted that the first informant report has been lodged after 5 to 6 hours from the incident. It is further argued that there is material contradiction and improvement in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that as per FIR, the victim has been admitted in a hospital after the incident but there is no evidence with regard to the admission. It is further submitted that as per supplementary medical report, no spermatozoa was seen. It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2021 having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions Court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and he further submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But, he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) The victim was 21 years old at the time of incident having degree of M.Sc.

(b) The applicant was 25 years old at the time of incident;

(c) The applicant and the victim know each other prior to the incident and they are face-book friend;

(d) There is no evidence with regard to admission to the victim in any hospital;

(e) There is no allegation with regard to committing forceful commit of rape but as per medical report dated 24.11.2021 conducted at 00:45 hours, two contusions were found on the body of the victim, but, in second medical report, no external injury was found on the body of the victim;

(f) There is material contradiction and improvement in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;

It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Tejveer Rawat be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient case, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 27.4.2022/CS/-