Dr. Durgesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.237 of 2022, registered at police station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 376, 376(2)(e), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 354 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per the allegations of the First Information Report, lodged by the victim, on 30.11.2022, she went to Dr. Durgesh Kumar, applicant, of University’s hospital for check up. She was having pain while peeing and also stomach ache. Applicant had advised her to give a urine sample and then he said he needed to examine her private parts to see if there was any visible infection. She refused, despite which he (applicant) digitally raped her. She was not in a mental state to report the incident, but, yesterday, when similar case was reported from another fellow student of the University, she got the courage and reported to the police station. The First Information Report was registered on 13.12.2022.

Heard Mr. R.S. Kunduru, Advocate, Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. R.S. Kunduru, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; the First Information Report was lodged after a long delay and no satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay in lodging the FIR; there is no prescription of the said hospital; there is no medical report of the so called victim; Smt. Beena Arya, Nurse of the said hospital, did not support the allegations of the First Information Report in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; applicant has no criminal history; he is working in Pantnagar University, he is in custody since 13.12.2022, and, the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that prescription of the said hospital and the medical report of the victim are not available.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Dr. Durgesh Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.