Sunita Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present 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 Nagar, Haridwar, District Haridwar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 365, 368, 323, 504, 506, 120B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per FIR, in 2010, when the informant/victim was 14 years old, she went to Shantikunj, Haridwar with one Maniram Sahu of her village. She was raped by named accused in July, 2010. With the said allegations, a written information was given by her 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. There was no allegation against the present applicant in the said FIR.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for victim.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that in the said FIR (No.310 of 2020), investigation was conducted. The closure report was filed after completion of the investigation. A protest petition was filed by one male person to the closure report. In the said proceedings, informant filed her affidavit. She stated for the first time in her said affidavit that the present applicant along with co-accused persons abducted her and her mother from Raipur and brought them to Delhi, threatened them and forced them to lodge a false FIR against the accused persons of the FIR No.310 of 2020. Further investigation was conducted on the direction of the concerned Magistrate and after completion of further investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant and co-accused persons.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, has further submitted that the applicant-Smt. Sunita Sharma, aged about 57 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. She has no criminal history. She is a permanent resident of District Patiala, Punjab, therefore, there is no likelihood of her absconding as well, and, she is in judicial custody since 16.09.2022.

On the other hand, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate have opposed the bail application. According to them, applicant along with co-accused persons abducted the victim and her mother from Raipur and forced the victim to lodge a false FIR (No.310 of 2020) against the accused persons of the said FIR.

In the present matter, charge-sheet has already been filed after completion of the further investigation, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant, aged about 57 years, is in judicial custody since 16.09.2022, and, there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity.

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- Sunita Sharma be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her, Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.