Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1446/2023 on 7 August, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
I.A. No.1 of 2023 (Delay Condonation Appl.)
In
BA1 No.1446 of 2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. H.C. Pathak and Mr. B.D.
Pande, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Balvinder Singh, Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Vide order dated 22.06.2023,
learned State Counsel was granted two
weeks' time to file objection to the bail
application. Learned State Counsel
submits that victim has been informed in
terms of Section 15A of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act.
3. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of
State is taken on record. The delay
condonation application stands disposed
of.
4. This is first bail application moved
by the applicant seeking regular bail in
F.I.R. No. 173 of 2022, under Section
452, 323, 504, 509 I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(r), 3 (1)(s) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities), Act, registered at Police
Station Ramnagar, District Nainital.
5. The FIR was lodged under Sections
323, 354, 452, 504, 509 IPC and
Sections 3(1) (w) (i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)
(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act on 19.05.2022 alleging
that on 06.05.2022, in the evening,
while complainant was returning home
from market, she found accused-
applicant sitting with 4-5 boys near
Chowki, and on seeing her, the accused-
applicant came towards her on his
motorcycle and made obscene gestures
and also passed lewd remarks; when she
protested, applicant hurled, abuses and
his friends also started ridiculing the
complainant; when complaint regarding
the incident was made to applicant's
mother the next day, then she assured
that she will counsel the applicant. It is
further alleged that on 07.05.2022 at
about 04:30 p.m., applicant and his four
friends entered house of the complainant
while there was no other family member
except her sister-in-law and her infant
child, the applicant and his friends
outraged the modesty of the complainant
and her sister-in-law and also used
casteist remarks and applicant also
touched the breast of the complainant
inappropriately; while going out of the
gate, they also hurled casteist abuses
upon complainant's uncle. It is further
alleged that in the late hours at about
08:30 p.m., applicant, his mother, elder
brother and sister again entered the
house of the complainant and attacked
family members of the complainant with
an intention to kill them, and when the
incident was reported to police, police
asked them to get themselves medically
examined and during medical
examination also, the applicant used
abusive language on telephone.
6. It is not in dispute that upon
conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet
is filed only against the applicant for
offences punishable under Section 452,
323, 504, 509 IPC and Sections 3(1) (r)
and 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant
has referred to the charge-sheet, which
reveals that notice under Section 41A
CrPC was given to the applicant, and the
applicant had complied with the terms of
the notice and cooperated in the
investigation, therefore, he was not
arrested during investigation.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant has been falsely
implicated by making wild allegations in
the FIR; no charge-sheet is filed against
brother and sister of the applicant, who
were named in the FIR and Section 354
IPC is dropped from the charge-sheet
for want of evidence, therefore, applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail. He
further submits that applicant had
appeared before the learned Sessions
Judge, Nainital and had applied for bail,
however, his bail application was
rejected and applicant was remanded to
judicial custody.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant
contended that all the offences are
punishable for less than seven years,
therefore, applicant is entitled to bail in
view of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation & another, (2021) 10 SCC
773, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and 2023 SCC
OnLin SC 452. Reliance is also placed on
para 14 of a recent judgment rendered
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand
and another, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 892 and Siddharth v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 676.
10. Per contra, learned State Counsel
contended that applicant was rightly
remanded to judicial custody, as
sufficient evidence was found against
him and he has been charge-sheeted for
serious offences, however, he conceded
that all the offences for which he has
been charge-sheeted, are punishable for
less than seven years.
11. Without expressing any opinion as
to the final merits of the case, this Court
is of the view that applicant has made
out a case for grant of bail at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
13. Let the applicant, namely,
Digambar alias Babloo Bora be released
on bail, on executing personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
like amount, to the satisfaction of Court
concerned.
14. It is made clear that any
observation made by this Court is only
for the purpose of disposal of bail
application. It shall not be taken into
consideration at all in any other
proceedings.
15. The order passed by learned
Sessions Judge, does not appear to be in
consonance with the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Satendra Kumar
Antil (supra) and Md. Asfak Alam
(supra). Let comments be called from
the Sessions Judge, Nainital within two
weeks, on the said aspect.
16. List on 28.08.2023.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
07.08.2023
Arpan
