Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26932 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Tripathi,Pramit Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.59 of 2022, under Sections 328, 323, 376-D IPC, registered at Police Station Chandinagar, District Baghpat.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 29/01.01.2022 when the first informant was called to a certain place by Gyan Singh @ Nikki who was a face-book friend of the first applicant. It is stated that the said person was accompanied by one Rahul and Akash who administered an intoxicating drink to the first informant and upon her becoming unconscious she was taken to a hotel in Haridwar where she was raped and videography of incident was also made. It has also been stated that when the first informant tried to lodge a complaint on 31.01.2022 in Police Station Chandinagar, District Bagpat, the accused persons came to the police station alongwith their family members who after interaction with the police took the applicant forcibly to their house and assaulted her with the threat that video of the incident would be uploaded on social media. It is further stated on 03.02.2020 at about 11.30 P.M, the aforesaid persons and their family members including the mother, sister and aunt of the applicant assaulted the first informant but she somehow managed to escape and thereafter FIR was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only in order to extract money from him. It is submitted that earlier as well the first informant had sought to make a complaint with regard to the same incident but as per report of the investigating officer dated 21.02.2012, the allegations levelled were found to be untrue. Learned counsel has adverted to the aforesaid report dated 21.02.2022 to indicate that the investigating officer found the first applicant to have been earlier married and divorced and had two children from the first marriage whereafter she has contracted marriage with Gyan Singh @ Nikki and matrimonial dispute had ensued which was sought to be compromised by the police. Report also states that the location of Gyan Singh @ Nikki was not found at the place and time from where abduction is alleged. It is submitted that even otherwise the narration of incident in the FIR as well as in the subsequent statements of prosecutrix do not inspire confidence. Learned counsel also drawn attention to the fact that the prosecutrix has refused to get herself medically examined. It is submitted that co-accused Akash has already been admitted to bail by coordinate bench of this court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20356 of 2022 on the same allegations.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that the statements of prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborate the allegations as levelled in the FIR and indicate abduction and assault with rape upon the first informant.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although incident is said to have taken place on 29.01.2022. The FIR has been lodged on 17.03.2022 without any cogent explanation for delay. Although the prosecutrix has sought to corroborate the allegations levelled in the FIR in her subsequent statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but she has refused medical examination which would have corroborated the allegation of intoxication and rape with assault. Even in the FIR general allegations have been levelled against the entire family members of applicant who is under incarceration since 02.04.2022 with only charge-sheet having been filed. The earlier report of investigating officer dated 21.02.2022 also does not corroborate the allegations as levelled against the applicant. Co-accused, namely Akash having same allegations upon him has already been admitted to bail as indicated hereinabove.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Rahul involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. 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.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022
Subodh/-
