Allahabad High Court
Harish Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53922 of 2021 Applicant :- Harish Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Harish Chandra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.79 of 2021 under Sections 376 (2) N, 354C, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 66E, 67, 67A I. T. Act, Police Station-Jogiya Udaypur, District- Siddharth Nagar, during pendency of trial.
4. Before considering the proceedings of present criminal misc. bail application, it is apposite to mention here that applicant and prosecutrix solemnized their marriage on 02.10.2020. For protection of their rights, applicant and prosecutrix jointly approached this Court by way of Writ-C No. 24389 of 2020 (Manisha Kumari and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others wherein this Court passed the following order on 18.12.2020:
"Let this matter appear in the additional cause list on 13.1.2021, in order to enable the petitioners to apply for online registration of their marriage. In the meantime, it is provided that in case there is any threat to the life and liberty of petitioners, they shall approach the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned, who shall take necessary steps in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522. Order Date :- 18.12.2020 "
5. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 01.08.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 12.08.2021 was lodged by first informant Smt. Vidhyawati Devi (mother of prosecutrix) and was registered Case Crime No.79 of 2021 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 I. T. Act, Police Station-Jogiya Udaypur, District- Siddharth Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant-Harish Chandra has been nominated as solitary named accused.
6. The gravamen of the allegations made in aforesaid F.I.R. is to the effect the named accused-Harish Chandra (applicant herein) has dislodged the modesty of prosecutrix in a very clandestine manner.
7. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation Prosecutrix was examined by Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Copy of the same is on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement, has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined. However, the Medico Legal Report of the prosecutrix has not been brought on record. According to learned A.G.A. no internal or external injury was found on the body of prosecutrix. No such signs were discovered by the Doctor, who has examined the prosecutrix, to show the commission of penetrative sexual assault. Subsequently, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The same is on record at page 35 of the paper-book. Prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has reiterated her earlier statement as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer, recovered the High School Mark-sheet of the prosecutrix wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been recorded as 12.08.1997. Occurrence has taken place on 01.08.2021. As such, prosecutrix was aged about 22 years on the date of incident. On the basis of statements of first informant and other witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he opined to submit a charge-sheet. Ultimately, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 20.10.2021 whereby applicant-Harishchandra has been charge-sheeted under Sections 376 (2) N, 354C, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 66E, 67, 67A I. T. Act, Police Station-Jogiya Udaypur, District- Siddharth Nagar.
8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in afore-mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in afore-mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that prosecutrix and applicant solemnized marriage on 02.10.2020 and for protection of their liberty, applicant and prosecutrix jointly approached this Court by means of Writ-C No. 24389 of 2020 (Manisha Kumari and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), which was finally disposed of by this court vide order dated 18.12.2020. Copy of the same is on record as Annexure-3 to the second supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that applicant has already instituted a Suit for restitution of conjugal rights as provided under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, which has been registered as Marriage Petition No. 249 of 2021 (Harish Chandra Vs. Manisha). However, in spite of the fact that a period of 9 months has rolled by from the date of insititution of afore-mentioned marriage petition, no written statement has been filed by the prosecutrix therein. It is further submitted that once the parties have solemnized marriage and the prosecutrix and applicant jointly approached this Court for protection of their liberty, no offence as complained of can be said to have been committed by applicant. It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 14.08.2021. As such, he has undergone more than six and a half months of incarceration. Charge-sheet has already been submitted therefore the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Thus, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present bail application. Learned A.G.A. submits that applicant is not only a named accused but also a charge-sheeted accused. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.
11. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has urged out a case for bail.
12. Let the applicant-Harish Chandra involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
13. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison.
17. Accordingly, present bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022 YK