Sahajad vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.372 of 2020, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 376 & 508 of I.P.C.

According to the First Information Report dated 25.11.2020, the informant/victim was under treatment of the present applicant. On 19.11.2020, when she went to bring medicine, present applicant had burned something upon paper after that, she became unconscious, thereafter, the applicant had committed rape upon her. The applicant told her that she was under the impression of supernatural powers and also told her not to disclose any person, otherwise, her husband would die, and due to such reason, she did not disclose the said incident to any person. She disclosed the incident to her husband on 25.11.2020. During the investigation, the medical examination of the victim was conducted. Statements of the victim, under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Heard Smt. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Atul Kumar Sah, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Mamta Joshi, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

Smt. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated; there are certain material contradictions in the statements of the victim, recorded under Sections 161, 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and before the Court as PW1. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that according to the alleged victim, her neighbour had taken her to the accused, where, the accused had raped her. But, there is no such statement in the First Information Report and neither her neighbour (PW3) has supported her (alleged victim) statements; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, he has no criminal history and he is in custody since 26.11.2020.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that there are certain contradictions in the statements of the victim and the applicant has no criminal history.

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, 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-Sahajad 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) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The 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, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.