Abdul Rehman vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for making the victim, aged 21 years, as her friend by impersonating with a Hindu name despite the fact

that he was a Muslim, subsequently establishing sexual relations with her on promise to marry her and later on resiling from the same, has come up

before this Court seeking regular bail.

Based on a complaint, the police arrested the petitioner on 22.09.2020, in FIR No.35 of 2020, dated 21.09.2020, registered under Sections 376, 506,

419, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), in Woman Police Station, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing

cognizable and non-bailable offences. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.PC before learned Special Judge, Una. However,

vide order dated 12.9.2020, learned Special Judge Una, H.P. dismissed the petition.

The petitioner's criminal history relating to the offences prescribing sentence of greater than seven years of imprisonment or when on conviction,

the sentence imposed was more than three years: The contents of the petition and the status report do not reveal any criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 21.09.2020, the victim aged 21 years along with her mother, visited the Woman Police

Station, Una. She filed a written complaint in the Police Station alleging that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category. She was pursuing course of

Nursing GNM, from Him Academy, Badeda, Tehsil Haroli, District Una. Around one and a half year ago, a boy met her in Bus Stand, Haroli and he

revealed his name as Vicky Sharma, resident of Nangal. After talking for a while, they became friends. The said Vicky Sharma, told the victim that he

works in Flood Control, Haroli. However, the said person, who revealed his name as Vicky Sharma was in fact a Muslim and his real name was

Abdul Rehman, the petitioner herein. Concealing his identity, the petitioner Abdul Rehman @ Vicky Sharma kept on alluring her and showed her

bright future. The victim states that she fell in his trap and he promised to marry her and under such pretext, committed coitus with her on numerous

occasions. The petitioner told the victim that they would marry soon and would also buy a vehicle before marriage and for that purpose, he needed

money. On this the victim had handed over a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to Abdul Rehman. Apart from that the victim also handed over him a sum of

Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. Both of them knew another girl, who was pursuing Law from Him Academy. She told the victim that the boy,

who revealed his name as Vicky Sharma, in fact was a Muslim. She further told that he was also engaged for last seven years somewhere-else. On

coming to know this reality, the victim was stunned. To verify the suspicion, she visited the home of Abdul Rehman at Talwara and told everything to

his family members. The family members of Abdul Rehman and his sisters refused to pursue her marriage with Abdul Rehman on the ground that she

belongs to Scheduled Caste community. In the meanwhile, Abdul Rehman, reached home and hurled filthy abuses on her. He dragged her inside the

room and beat her mercilessly. After great efforts, she rescued herself from the clutches of Abdul Rehman and he warned her that in case she dared

to visit his home, he would throw acid on her. After that she found out phone number of the girl with her Abdul Rehman was engaged. She called her

and told her about his real face and the girl asked the victim to meet her. On 20.9.2020, she along with one of her friends named Sanjay visited the

house of said girl in village Chhutewal, Nangal. The said girl made both of them to sit and offerred water to them. She showed her entire evidence

from her mobile phone. All of a sudden, the said girl Ruksana Khan and her brother Rajat Khan snatched her phone and broke it. They also hurled

filthy abuses and also the words, which prohibited under the SC & ST Act. They also took out the memory Card from her phone and destroyed the

same. On hearing the commotion, the people of community gathered and called the Nangal Police. After that the police reached the spot and brought

them to Police Station of Sector-2 Nangal. In the Police Station, the police officials recorded the statement of both the parties and let them go. Based

on these facts, the police registered FIR mentioned above. On medico legal examination, the medical officer opined that the possibility of penetration

could not be ruled out and collected vaginal smear for scientific evidence. Subsequently, on 23.09.2020, learned ACJM, recorded the statement of the

victim under Section 161 CrPC. After that the police arrested the accused, who revealed his age as 29 years.

The Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court grants bail, such order must be subject to conditions,

especially of not repeating the criminal activities.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court held that the bail

decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh

Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences

are entitled to bail, if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence

of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such persons on bail, in the given fact situations. The

rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application, and the Courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing

requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably

illustrated that the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or

thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who

seeks enlargement on bail from the court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of

justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court in Para 16, held that the delicate light of the law favours

release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6),

Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is

unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict

as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the offense's heinous nature, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a

crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away with the victim(s)

and witnesses. The Court is under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused,

society, and State. However, while deciding bail applications, the Courts should discuss evidence relevant only for determining bail. The difference in

the order of bail and final judgment is similar to a sketch and a painting. However, some sketches are in detail and paintings with a few strokes.

The victim is aged 21 years. She was pursuing the course after passing 10+2. In the complaint, there is absolute silence about the petitioner

involving her family and her parents to pursue the marriage proposal. In stead of the petitioner on her own visited the home of the accused. So far as

the allegations of the victim handing over the money to purchase car is concerned, the victim does not tell the source from which she obtained such

huge amount and it was not her case that she was a working girl. Both the boy and the girl were grown-up adults at the time when, for the first time,

they established coitus. They knew what they were doing. At this stage, for the purpose of bail, to put entire blame on the boy would be stretching too

far. Regarding the petitioner’s concealing the identity and alluring the victim, this fact needs to be established during the trial and further

incarceration of the petitioner would cause injustice merely on these uncorroborated allegations.

An analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose. Without

commenting on the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation and the period of incarceration already undergone would make out a case for bail.

The possibility of the accused influencing the course of the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of

fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative conditions and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the

Constitutional bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and

irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

Following the decision of this Court in Abhishek Kumar Singh v. State of HP, Cr.MP(M) No. 1017 of 2020, the petitioner shall be released on bail

in the FIR mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac only (INR 1,00,000/-), and shall either furnish two sureties of a

similar amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/the Court exercising jurisdiction over the

concerned Police Station where FIR is registered, or the aforesaid personal bond and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Twenty five Thousand only (INR

25,000/-), made in favour of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P., from any of the banks where the stake

of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g., HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of

automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the linked account. Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the

account of the petitioner. If such a fixed deposit is made manually, then the original receipt has to be deposited.

If made online, then the copy attested by any Advocate has to be filed, and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled. It shall be total

discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. During the trial's pendency, it shall be open for the petitioner to apply

for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa. Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire amount of fixed

deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). The Court shall have a lien over the deposits until discharged

by substitution, and otherwise up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be

deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The petitioner to give security to the concerned Court(s) for attendance. Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay

the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall

attend the trial on each date, unless exempted, and in case of appeal, also promise to appear before the higher Court, in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bonds, the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s),

WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available).

c) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer. Whenever the investigation takes

place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5

PM. The petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

d) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required, and in the event of failure to do so, it will be open for

the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted by the present order.

e) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police

officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to

tamper with the evidence.

f) Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court,

on the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted.

g) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the concerned Court may serve the accused through E- Mail (if any), and any

instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo

Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July 10, 2020].

h) The concerned Court may also inform the accused about the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants through the modes mentioned above.

i) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may send such summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail.

j) In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, then the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants, and to enable the

accused to know the date, the Court may, if it so desires, also inform the petitioner about such Bailable Warrants through SMS/ WhatsApp message/

E-Mail.

k) Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, then the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioner's

presence and send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.

l) In case of non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the expenditure (only the principal

amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after

forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioner's failure to reimburse the State shall

entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the bank account(s) of the petitioner. However, this recovery is subject to the condition that

the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioner alone and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the petitioner in that FIR,

and during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.

m) The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within

thirty days from such modification, to the Police Station of this FIR, and also to the concerned Court.

n) The petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that

even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so.

o) Considering the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner should stay far away from the place of

occurrence while on bail - (Vikramsingh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458).

p) The petitioner shall neither stare, stalk, make any gestures, remarks, call, contact, message the victim, either physically, or through phone call or any

other social media, nor roam around the victim's home. The petitioner shall not contact the victim.

q) The petitioner shall surrender all firearms along with ammunitions, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within 30 days

from today. However, subject to the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back, in case of

acquittal in this case.

r) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and also after that in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

s) During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats the offence or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is seven years or more,

then the State may move an appropriate application for cancellation of this bail.

The learned Counsel representing the accused and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all

conditions of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or English.

In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for

modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even before the Court taking

cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency, from further investigation in accordance

with law.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The SHO of the concerned Police Station or the Investigating Officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soft copy, to the

victim, at the earliest. In case the victim notices stalking or any violation of this order, she may either inform the SHO of the concerned Police Station

or write to the Trial Court or even to this Court.

In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.

Copy Dasti.