Uttarakhand High Court
Shalu Tyagi Alias Vishal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 November, 2023
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
02ND NOVEMBER, 2023
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.1670 of 2023
Shalu Tyagi alias Vishal. .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh,
A.G.A.
Counsel for the Informant/: Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate.
Victim
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
A charge-sheet was filed against the applicant in connection with the Case Crime No.219 of 2022, registered at police station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the applicant under Sections 385, 504, 417 and Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A Regular Bail was granted to the applicant by this Court on 25.07.2023. Investigating Officer conducted further investigation and upon conclusion of further investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under Section 376 and Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The subsequent charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer on the ground that the applicant had had physical relations with the victim after intoxicating her and had 2 said that he would always be with her. Even after the said incident, applicant had established physical relations with her.
2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, contended that all these allegations are mentioned in the First Information Report, but during investigation, applicant was not found to have committed the offence of Section 376 and Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Informant was a married lady at the time of the alleged incident. She was married to Izhar Ahmed. She had lodged an FIR (No.59 of 2019, police station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun) against one Harvinder by making allegations of similar nature against him (Harvinder).
3. Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for informant opposed the bail application. However, they have fairly conceded that the victim was a married lady at the time of the incident.
4. 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.
5. 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 3 opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
6. The Bail Application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Shalu Tyagi alias Vishal 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) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall 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.
8. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
9. Modification Application (MCRC No.01 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 02.11.2023 Neha