Preetam Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.387 of 2019, registered with Police Station

Sahaspur, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C.

An FIR was registered on 27.09.2019 through an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short as ‘the

Code’). According to the FIR, on 04.04.2019, the victim booked a car for site seeing. The present applicant was owner and driver of the car. The

victim took the mobile number of the applicant in order to call his vehicle as and when required by the victim. The victim and the applicant started

calling each other. On 06.04.2019, the victim visited the zoo in the car of the applicant. On 09.04.2019, the applicant called the victim on phone and

told that a birthday party of his friend was organized on the same day i.e. on 09.04.2019 and requested the victim to attend the function. The victim

reached the birthday place i.e. Akansha Guest House at 11.30 a.m., but there was no party. The applicant and victim were in a room of the said Guest

House. The applicant forcibly committed rape upon her in the said room. The applicant also pressurized her to associate with his other friends for

physical relationship. Anyhow, the victim escaped from the spot. Thereafter, the applicant kept on calling the victim by saying that he had made the

obscene video of the victim and if she did not obey the applicant, he will send the obscene video on WhatsApp. The victim visited the mother of the

applicant and disclosed her whole story.

Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

The applicant is facing trial. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; the applicant has been falsely

implicated; the victim is a married lady; there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations of the victim; there was vital delay of one month in

lodging first complaint; the victim is older than the applicant; there is no evidence of entry of the applicant and victim in the said Guest House; there

are material contradictions in the statements of the victim, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code and allegations of the FIR; the applicant

is in custody since 13.11.2019; during the investigation, the Manager or/and Owner of the said Guest House were not examined by the Investigating

Officer and no obscene video was recovered during the investigation; the applicant has no criminal history.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. He submits that charge-sheet has been filed; if the applicant will be

enlarged on bail, he will certainly influence the prosecution’s witnesses. However, he fairly concedes that there is no evidence of entry of the

applicant and victim in the said Guest House; the Manager and Owner of the said Guest House were not examined during the investigation; no

obscene video was recovered during the investigation and the applicant has no criminal history.

The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that according to the FIR, the victim reached at the alleged birthday place by Bus, whereas,

according to the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 161 of the Code, she was taken to the said birthday place by the applicant on a Bullet

bike. According to the prosecution, first complaint was moved by the victim after one month of the said incident i.e. on 08.05.2019 and there was no

any reasonable explanation about this inordinate delay. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim, aged about 24 years, is a

married lady as she has stated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the learned

counsel for the State has not placed any prima facie material in support of his allegation that if the applicant will be enlarged on bail, he will influence

the prosecution’s witnesses.

The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the

attendance of the accused. Bail is the rule and the 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. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1

SCC 694, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it

becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and in the light of 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 merits of the case, which may

otherwise affect outcome of the trial, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant 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 subject to the condition that the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates the condition imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move the court for

cancellation of the bail.