Uttarakhand High Court
Vikram Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 July, 2020
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1844 of 2019
Vikram Singh ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble 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 No.42 of 2019, registered with Police Station Chorgaliya, District Nainital for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (3), 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
2. An FIR was registered on 31.05.2019 against the present applicant on the basis of a written report lodged by the mother of the victim, alleging in it that there was a wedding party in her village on 30.05.2019. Her daughter, aged about 13 years, went to the wedding party with a girl of next door around 09.00 p.m. Her daughter told her on 31.05.2019 that at around 11.00 p.m. last night, the applicant made her and others sit in his car to leave their houses. After leaving others to their houses, the applicant took her to the Cycle Stand of a Public School and raped her. He threatened her that he would kill her if she told anyone about the incident. The victim was medically examined. Her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
3. Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
24. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated; there are major contradictions regarding the age of the alleged victim; according to the respondent, the date of birth of the alleged victim was recorded 01.04.2007 in her school register, while according to the Parivar Register, her date of birth was 05.03.2004; therefore, under these circumstances, it is suspected that she was minor at that time of the alleged incident; the medical examination disclosed that the alleged victim had consumed alcohol in the night of the alleged incident; her mother has also given a statement that mouth of her daughter was smelling bad; the doctor stated that she was not sure about the commission of rape because there were no injury on the body of the victim; the alleged victim, PW- 1 stated in her cross examination that the applicant had not done anything with her; the applicant is a farmer and disengaged the father of the alleged victim from his work due to which her family became annoyed and for taking revenge of the same falsely implicated the applicant; the applicant is a resident of District Nainital; he has no criminal history; he is in custody since 01.06.2019; the charge sheet has already been filed and statement of the alleged victim has been recorded, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
5. The learned Brief Holder appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly concedes that there are discrepancies in the age of the victim and the applicant has no criminal history.
6. 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. 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. There is nothing on record to indicate that the 3 applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme 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.
7. 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 merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. 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 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;
10. 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.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 20.07.2020 JKJ/Neha