Allahabad High Court
Puttun vs State Of U.P. on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56926 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42414 of 2024 Applicant :- Puttun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh,Krishna Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 242 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, police station Kokhraj, district Kaushambi, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
In short compass, the facts of the case are that the first information report has been lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the victim herself. The allegations made in the first information report are that the elder sister of the victim was married in village Tudi Purwa Nauthiya, police station Kokhraj, district Kaushambi. Puttun (applicant) brother-in-law of her sister, who used to come to her house in Kaushambi, on the pretext of marriage, enticed her and took her to Mumbai in March, 2023 and established sexual relations with her as husband and wife. Puttun kept her in a room at Mumbai and thereafter in the village at his uncle's house. After that he left the victim at his house and promised her that after coming back from Mumbai, he will solemnize marriage. On 12.12.2023 Puttun made a phone call that his brother-in-law Sumesh and his brother Virendra are going to take her by motorcycle and asked her to come with them and that they will take her to Mumbai for solemnizing marriage. Believing on the words of Puttun, she accompanied the aforesaid persons on motorcycle. However, on the way, at Moohari garden, both Sumesh and Virendra committed rape on her one by one and threatened her that now she does not deserve for Puttun. The first information report further recounts that the aforesaid incident happened with the conspiracy of Puttun. Thereafter, Puttun used to abuse her and refused to marry her and also threatened to eliminate her.
On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered against the applicant under Sections 376-D, 504, 506 IPC against Puttun (applicant), Virendra and Sumesh. After lodging of the FIR, the statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which she fully supported the prosecution version by reiterating the FIR version. However, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet under Section 376 IPC only against the applicant Puttun and exonerated Virendra and Sumesh from the offence under Section 376 IPC and submitted charge sheet under Section 504 and 506 IPC only.
On 15.01.2025, when the case was taken up, the Court passed the following orders:
"During the course of argument, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been lodged against applicant-Puttun as well as co-accused Virendra and Somesh for the alleged offence under Sections 376D, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The allegation of rape has been levelled by the victim against co-accused Virendra and Somesh also in the F.I.R. as well as in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., whereas they have not been charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. but charge-sheet has been submitted against them only for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. is directed to file personal affidavit of the Investigating Officer regarding aforesaid submissions by the next date.
Put up this case as fresh on 27.01.2025."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 15.01.2025, personal affidavit of the investigating officer Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Karari, district Kaushambi has been filed on 25.01.2025 mentioning inter alia therein that during investigation, he has recorded the statements of twelve independent witnesses, who have denied the allegations levelled by the victim against Virendra and Sumesh, therefore he has deleted Section 376D IPC from the investigation against co-accused Virendra and Sumesh. Thereupon the Court passed the following orders on 11.2.2025:
"Pursuant to order of this Court dated 15.01.2025, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi who was the investigating officer of this case i.e. Case Crime No. 242 of 2024, under Section 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi has filed his personal affidavit dated 25.01.2025 mentioning inter-alia that during investigation, he has recorded the statement of twelve independent witnesses, who have denied the allegations levelled by the victim against Virendra and Sumesh, therefore, he has deleted Section 376D I.P.C. from the investigation against co-accused Virendra and Sumesh.
After considering the stand of the investigating officer, I find that the affidavit dated 25.01.2025 is not satisfactory. It is often seen that some of the Investigating Officers are conducting the investigation in an arbitrary manner and despite having material evidence on record, they conclude otherwise in order to extend undue favour to the accused, whereas a fair investigation is one of the essentials of criminal justice system and integral facet of rule of law and legal right of the victim and accused as well.
In view of the above, the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow is directed to depute some senior officer to examine the matter thoroughly, who shall file an affidavit by the next date on the issue whether there are materials against the accused persons, namely, Virendra and Sumesh to constitute an offence under Section 376-D I.P.C. or not.
Let this matter be listed on 06.03.2025 as fresh.
Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall communicate this order to Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow within 48 hours along with the order dated 05.01.2025 and personal affidavit of the Investigating Officer dated 25.01.2025."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, an affidavit dated 08.4.2025 has been filed by Shri Prem Kumar Gautam, presently posted as Inspector General of Police, Prayagraj Range, Prayagraj.
It is also mentioned inter alia in the affidavit dated 08.4.2025 that after completing the necessary formalities, censure entry has been awarded to the earlier investigating officer Shri Rakesh Kumar and he has been transferred from police station Karari to Police Lines, Kaushambi and that the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi has also written a letter to the Additional Director General of Police (Training), Directorate of Police Training, U.P., Lucknow requesting him to send Shri Rakesh Kumar, Inspector to any training institute in order to gain skills for conducting the investigation. The censure entry awarded to Shri Rakesh Kumar shall have the following effect on his service career:
(i) He would not be entitled to bonus for a period of one year.
(ii) His first departmental promotion would be affected.
(iii) The assured career progression (ACP) awarded 10, 16, and 26 years of service would be affected for five years
(iv) He would be be entitled to any posting as a Station House Officer/Station Officer at police station for the period of three years.
In the affidavit it is mentioned that the investigation of the case in question has been transferred to Circle Officer, Kaushambi, who moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi for making further investigation in the matter. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi vide order dated 04.03.2025 has granted permission to proceed for further investigation. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that looking the gravity of the offence, the investigation of aforesaid case crime No. 242 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504, 506, police station Kokhraj, district Kaushambi has been transferred from Cricle Officer, Kaushambi to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi. The investigation is going on.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in respect of the incident dated 12.12.2023, the first information report has been lodged on 03.08.2024 for which no plausible explanation has been tendered by the prosecution. It is further submitted that both the victim and the applicant are major and was having love affairs with each other. It is also submitted that the applicant has never made any promise to marry the victim. The medical report of the victim does not support the prosecution version. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024 may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the statement of the victim has been recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has levelled the allegations of rape against Puttun (applicant), Sumesh and Virendra. She further stated that from the relationship of the applicant she became pregnant thrice.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety I find that the victim in her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that after the incident dated 12.12.2023, the victim made complaint to the SHO and the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi. When no action was taken by the police, she informed the higher officers of the police department on 05.01.2024 by post. On getting no response from the police, she was compelled to file the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, who directed for registration and investigation of the case. I also find that the statement of the victim has been recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has fully supported the prosecution version and also stated that on account of relationship with the applicant she became pregnant thrice, which were got terminated by intoxicating medicines. Further in the medical report dated 06.08.2024, the hymen of the victim was found torn. As on date I do not find anything to disbelieve the statement of the victim.
Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with the cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
It is clarified that observations made herein above were only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Ishrat