Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/489/2019 on 25 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
BAIL APPLICATION No. 2979 of 2020
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.489 of 2019
25TH MAY, 2021
Between:
Suman Bhatt ...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the : Mr. Shiv Bhatt.
appellant.
Counsel for respondent. : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Justice Sri Alok Kumar Verma)
This application is filed on behalf of the
appellant-applicant Suman Bhatt seeking bail in this
appeal.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the
appellant-accused against the judgment dated
2
02.09.2019/03.09.2019, passed by the learned Special
Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Rudraprayag in Special
Sessions Trial No.06 of 2019, "State vs Suman Bhatt",
whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted under
Sections 376, 354D of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2012") read with
Section 42 of the Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years along
with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years
along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 366 of I.P.C., he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 342 of
I.P.C.; he has been further convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a
fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 506 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant has been directed to undergo further additional
imprisonment. All the sentenced are directed to run
concurrently.
3. Heard Mr. Shiv Bhatt, the learned counsel for
the appellant-accused and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
3
Deputy Advocate General for the State through video
conferencing.
4. Mr. Shiv Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submitted that there was a rivalry
between the family of the informant and the appellant,
therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated; the
first information report was delayed; the FIR cannot be
believed; the statements of the prosecution's witnesses
are contradictory; the case of the prosecution against the
appellant is based on a very weak evidence; the chain of
the events has not been proved by the prosecution; the
appellant is in jail since lodging the FIR.
5. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State
submitted that according to the school certificate, the date
of birth of the victim is 17.06.2004. On 17.05.2019, the
mother of the victim lodged an FIR against the present
applicant; the prosecution's witnesses, including the
victim, supported the case of the prosecution; even in her
cross-examination she categorically stated that the
appellant has committed rape on her several times;
medical examination report of the victim also supported
the prosecution case; there is no reason to implicate the
appellant, therefore, the appellant has rightly been
convicted.
4
6. Whether the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is so
long as throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the
prosecution case, must depend upon a variety of factors
which would vary from case to case. In some cases, delay
may be inevitable such as, cases involving the offences
against the chastity, modesty, honour etc. of a minor girl,
in which case, her family members usually take some time
to decide whether or not the matter should be reported to
the police.
7. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Prem
Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed, "So far as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is
concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be
equated with the case involving other offences. There are
several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix
and her family members before coming to the police
station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society
prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would
be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely
on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the
F.I.R."
8. While dealing with an application for bail, there
is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for considering
why bail is being granted particularly when the appellant-
5
accused is convicted in a serious offence, therefore, it is
clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in arbitrary or
fanciful manner.
9. The Act, 2012 has been enacted to strengthen
the legal provisions for the protection of children from
sexual abuses and exploitations. Child abuse has serious
physical and psycho-social consequences which adversely
affect the health and overall well-being of a child.
Penetrative sexual assault is most heinous offence causing
enormous emotional and physical harm that can lost
throughout child victim's life time.
10. At the stage of considering the bail application, a
detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case has not to be
undertaken. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large
extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular
case.
11. A ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (N.C.T.)
of Delhi and another, [2018 (1) CCSC 117] is that in
serious crimes, the mere fact that the appellant-accused is
in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant
consideration to release the appellant-accused on bail.
6
12. In the present matter, the prosecution's
witnesses, including the victim, have supported the case of
the prosecution. At this stage, a detailed appreciation of
evidence shall affect the merits of the case. If a strong
prima facie ground is disclosed for substantial doubt about
the conviction, it may be ground to grant the bail. Such a
ground does not appear in the present case.
13. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of
the case, there is no good ground to release the applicant-
accused, involved in this heinous crime, on bail. The bail
application is rejected accordingly.
14. It is clarified that the observations made
regarding the bail application are limited to the decision of
this bail application as to whether the bail application
should be allowed or not and the said observations shall
not effect the merit of this appeal.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 25th May, 2021
JKJ/Pant
