Hargovind Pravah vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This 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. 310 of 2020, registered at police station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar.

The present Applicant-Hargovind Pravah is in judicial custody under Sections 323, 365, 368, 504, 506, Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix went to Shantikunj, Haridwar with one Maniram Sahu in the year 2010. At that time, she was 14 years of age. She was raped by the named accused in the month of July, 2010. A written information was given by the prosecutrix to Vivek Vihar police station, Delhi on 02.05.2020. The case was registered in Vivek Vihar police station in zero crime number. The said FIR was transferred to Haridwar. The present applicant was not named in the said FIR. Upon conclusion of the Investigation, a closure report was filed. Further investigation was conducted on the direction of the concerned Magistrate. After completion of the further investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present applicant and co-accused persons. Prosecutrix (PW1) has been cross-examined by the present applicant.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. for State and Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aditi Dalakoti, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned counsel for the prosecutrix.

5 Opposing the bail application, Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the prosecutrix reached Delhi with her mother on 15.03.2020. The present applicant along with co-accused persons locked her mother in a room and took her (prosecutrix) signatures on some blank papers at gun point. After this, she and her mother were taken to Patiala in the house of Sunita Sharma (co-accused), where she was again pressurized and beaten. They (present applicant and co-accused persons) used to earn money by making her videos and audios.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the First Information Report (No. 310 of 2020) was registered against the named accused persons under Sections 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In and around November-December, 2021, the entire nature of the said FIR was modified. The entire incident was changed. The accused persons were changed and the offences were changed. The alleged video or audio has not been produced by the prosecution. Applicant is in custody since 25.05.2022. He is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Gorakhpur, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and, two accused persons, namely, Smt. Sunita Sharma and Manmohan Singh have been granted bail by this Court.

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 submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found 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 First Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Hargovind Pravah 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 shall 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 made clear 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.