Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2011
Author: A.P.Sahi
Bench: A.P.Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No.38 Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1938 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble A.P.Sahi,J.
The applicant is an employee of Rohilkhand University.
He is alleged to have committed an odious crime through an indecent exhibition of the victim's photograph that is not only contemptible but also dangerous to her reputation. He has also tried to blackmail her by putting her reputation to stake. It became so distressing for the victim that it exceeded all levels of ordinary tolerant human behaviour and therefore the victim decided to commit suicide.
This bail application has been moved contending primarily that no ingredient of abetting the offence of suicide is available so as to charge the applicant under Section 306 I.P.C. along with the other provisions and the applicant having been implicated falsely, he deserves to be bailed out.
The prosecution version discloses that the applicant is well versed in the technique of Computer operations and he was employed in the University where taking undue advantage of certain female students, the applicant took some photographs and uploaded them on a computer website which is being utilised by him to blackmail them including the victim after her marriage. The photographs depicted are allegedly indecent.
A first information report was lodged by the victim on 14.12.2010 with the aforesaid allegations that the applicant who is a Computer Operator in the Pharmacy Department of the University, had surreptitiously prepared some clips when the victim used to visit his residence ,as the father of the victim and the accused are well known to each other. Having prepared those clips he started blackmailing the victim, and after her marriage, tried to extract money from her threatening her with dire consequences. The applicant came to lodge the F.I.R. only after her in-laws viewed the said clipping and feeling humiliated she decided to commit suicide. She however gave up the idea on persuasion as per her statement recorded later on.
Sri Kamal Krishna learned counsel for the applicant submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the applicant can be tried for the offence under the Indecent Representation of Women (Provisions) Act, 1986 which otherwise is not attracted in the present case, the same is a bailable offence and that the applicant is entitled for bail. He submits that the provisions of Section 306 I.P.C are nowhere attracted and to the contrary the ingredients of Section 309 I.P.C. are reflected. The contention is that in view of the allegations of the victim in her statement the applicant cannot be prosecuted. Sri Kamal Krishna relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the recent case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2010 (1) JT 17 (Paras 6 to 21) contends that the conviction of the application under the said provision is almost impossible.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail and he submits that in view of the fact that the applicant is an employee of the University and has behaved in a manner that he does not deserve any bail as the statement of the witnesses indicates that the applicant has indulged in such activities with other females in the University.
Sri Neeraj Tiwari learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently urged that granting of bail would be allowing mis use of his talent to indulge in such activities in future. It is also contended that the evidence that has been collected during investigation leaves no room for doubt that the applicant is habitual and therefore bail should not be granted. It is further submitted by him that the overt and covert acts of the applicant can lead to further complications and suicidal attempts and therefore the ingredients for the offences for which he is charged are available.
Sri Kamal Krishna learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a married person and has a child and he has been implicated on account of internal politics of the University and therefore in view of the submissions raised bail should be granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A., it appears that Section 306 I.P.C. came to be added later on and the applicant was charged upon the statement of the victim having been recorded where she alleged that she had taken a decision to commit suicide. The said statement further recites that on persuasion by her in-laws she reversed her decision. The issue of applicability and charging the applicant with Section 306 I.P.C. in such circumstances would be a matter of evidence. To that extent the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant has to be accepted keeping in view the statement of the victim and provisions of Section 309 I.P.C. as well.
Nonetheless it is not necessary to enter into a detail examination of the evidence to cull out any such acceptance.
Sri Vivek Verma learned counsel for the University had been called upon to inform the Court as to what proceedings had been initiated against the applicant by the University. The Court was accordingly informed that the applicant has already been suspended and the University is contemplating serious action against the applicant. Nonetheless the applicant is in job in the University and therefore in order to defend himself he will have to physically present himself before the authority in the event any serious action is taken by the University. The applicant being an employee of the University is likely not to abscond as he is also a married person and has a child. In such a situation the applicant can be admitted to bail.
However a note of caution deserves to be made. The privacy and dignity of the victim has to be protected. The Court has come across a click on the website of Orkut whereby a privacy update has been introduced that allows users to restrict viewing of their albums to certain number persons or even to no one. This valuable information has been given by a student namely Srivats Narain who also opines that after opening the account of the accused the option of "shared with" should be clicked and a "close option" should be exercised that would block the picture making it inaccessible. This would be necessary to prevent future viewing of the photographs.
The Station House Officer shall therefore take help of such Police Officers who are experts with Software and Cyber crimes and forthwith block the said photographs preventing it being from viewed by anyone and at the same time retaining it as an evidence for the purpose of trial. The prosecution shall take all steps in this regard and the applicant upon being released shall extend full cooperation to the Station House Officer for doing so. The court below can also take appropriate measures and pass orders to protect the privacy and reputation of the victim.
Accordingly subject to the aforesaid directions let the applicant Manoj Kumar Pandey involved in case crime No. 4615 of 2010 under Sections 306, 109, 384, 467, 506, 294 IPC and 2 (c)/4/6 Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986 P.S.Baradari district Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The applicant shall not leave station except with the permission of the concerned Magistrate/Court.
A copy of this order may be made available to the Vice Chancellor of the Rohilkhand University to be placed on the file of the applicant and the Police shall be under an obligation to keep surveillance in order to prevent any future unwarranted behaviour of the applicant.
Dt.4.2.2011 mna