Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 June, 2017
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2833 of 2017
Sanjay Sharma ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Firoz Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
For the D.G.P. : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
04/Dated: 8th June, 2017
The petitioner is an accused for alleged offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Jharkhand Police registered an F.I.R. under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 10.02.2017. The allegation in the said F.I.R. is that the victim informant was raped when she was a student of class IXth while attending Taekwando Class, by one Kamlesh Thakur, who was her coach. She further complained that when she went to Ranchi to complain before Sanjay Sharma (petitioner) about the incident, she was administered some intoxicating substance and when she became unconscious, she was raped by this petitioner and her objectionable photographs were captured by this petitioner. She further states in the Fardbeyan that she was blackmailed by this petitioner with the help of those photographs and sexual assault continued. Basing upon this statement, the F.I.R. was lodged.
I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the initiation of the proceedings and lodging of the F.I.R. is with a malafide intention. He submits that from the F.I.R. it is apparent that the entire occurrence had taken place in Jharkhand, but the F.I.R. was initially lodged and registered at New Delhi. He further submits that the said Zero F.I.R. registered at New Delhi was transmitted to the Bokaro Police, but before receipt of the said F.I.R., a formal F.I.R. in Bokaro was registered on 10.02.2017. He further submits that alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 2008, but, surprisingly, after much delay in 2017, this case has been lodged. He submits that the victim was an employee of the petitioner and only when she was removed from service, on the ground of defalcation, this case was lodged. It is further submitted that this petitioner is a practicing advocate and is an elected member of Taekwando Association and his opponent used the informant, and conspired with her, in lodging this false case. He further states that there is no medical evidence in the entire case diary against the petitioner. He lastly submits that chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and the petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2017.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail stating that the allegation against the petitioner is grave and the occurrence had taken place when the informant was minor. He produced the copy of the case diary and admits that chargesheet has already been submitted in this case.
I have heard both the parties and have perused the records of the case as also the case diary.
From perusal of the records, I find that the entire allegation levelled against this petitioner relates to an alleged cause of action, which arose at Bokaro and Ranchi. Surprisingly, the victim did not lodge a F.I.R. at Bokaro or at Ranchi, but goes to New Delhi to lodge the F.I.R. for the incidence which had occurred at Bokaro/Ranchi (Jharkhand). The said case was registered as Zero F.I.R. by Kamla Market Police Station, New Delhi on 08.02.2017. The said Zero F.I.R. forms a part of this present F.I.R. (Sector IV Bokaro P.S. Case No.19 of 2017), which was registered on 10.02.2017, i.e., two days after lodging the Zero F.I.R. The Zero F.I.R. was transmitted by the Kamla Market Police Station, New Delhi to Bokaro vide letter dated 13.02.2017. This fact has been admitted by the learned A.P.P. and finds place in the case diary itself. This means before receipt of the copy of the Zero F.I.R., Bokaro Police managed to get a copy of the same and registered the case. How the Bokaro Police has received the copy of the said F.I.R. is not known. From the record, I find that the station diary entry of the Bokaro Police Station has been annexed. Entry No.13 of 10.02.2017 states that Bokaro Police received the First Information Report at 15.00 Hrs., but, how it was received has not been mentioned. The next entry at Sl.No.14 at 15.10 Hrs. states that one lady Inspector from Mahila Police Station has produced the informant. This also suggests that the informant did not produce the copy of the said F.I.R. This entire process creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. Further from the record, I find that when the F.I.R. was registered at Kamla Market Police Station, New Delhi, the victim categorically refused medical examination as well as drawing of samples. This fact is also recorded in the Zero F.I.R. Further I find that the alleged occurrence had taken place some time in the year 2008, but without any explanation, the informant complained before the police that too before the Delhi Police for the first time in the year 2017. The petitioner states on affidavit that the victim was his employee and thereafter because of some financial irregularities, she was removed from service. Document has been annexed to show that she was an employee of the petitioner. Another glaring aspect is a letter written by the informant to the S.H.O. Kamla Market Police Station wherein she has stated that the Police should not go to her house for making any inquiry, rather they should call her to the Police Station. This also creates doubt about the prosecution case.
After going through the case diary, I find that there is no material remotely suggesting that by using any photograph or any material the victim was blackmailed. In the fardbayan, there is a specific allegation that objectionable photographs were taken and by using those photographs petitioner was blackmailing the victim. If that be so, at least some material would have come in the case diary in support of the said contention, but, surprisingly, there is no such material in the case diary. Learned A.P.P. also admits this fact. Learned A.P.P. also admits that there is no medical record to suggest that rape was ever committed. Annexure 2 to the bail application is a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by one Priyanka Chakraborty. In her statement, she says that she was forced to make similar type of complaint against the office bearers of Taekwando Association by the informant of this case and another. In her statement she states about how the informant of this case was instrumental in lodging false F.I.R. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody and chargesheet has already been submitted in this case, thus, the investigation is complete.
In view of what has been observed above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Let the petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, 1st, Bokaro, in connection with Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 19 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 186 of 2017, with a condition that petitioner should appear before the Bokaro Sector-IV Police Station and mark his attendance once in a month.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar/