Uttarakhand High Court
Deepak Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand on 26 June, 2020
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 142 of 2019
Deepak Bhatt ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.0756 of 2018, registered with Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506, 450 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (a)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an FIR was registered on 18.09.2018 against the present applicant on the basis of a written report lodged by the mother of the victim, alleging in it that on 17.09.2018 at about 11 a.m., her daughter, aged about 16 years, was alone at home. The informant was working at SIDCUL. She had gone for her work. Her husband and three children had gone to village Fatehpurkalan. When the informant returned home, the victim was crying and informed her that the present applicant had forcefully committed rape with her on bed and when her maternal uncle came home, the applicant threatened her that if she informs anyone about the incident, he would kill her and thereafter, he ran away. The victim was medically examined. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
3. Heard Mr. Narendra Bali, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. 2 P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; medical examination report did not support the case of the respondent; on 18.09.2018, at the time of the medical examination, no injury was found on the body of the alleged victim; the alleged victim has given the statement at one place that when her maternal uncle started coming down holding the hand of the applicant, he freed her maternal uncle and ran away; while she has given statement at another place that after getting her maternal uncle's voice, the applicant ran away; according to the mother of the alleged victim, the date of birth of the victim in the Parivar Register was 16.07.2000, which was correct; according to the mother of the alleged victim, the bed sheet was covered with blood and dirt while the maternal uncle of the alleged victim stated that he had not seen any blood or dirt on the bed sheet and according to the police authorities, the said bed sheet was not taken into custody by the police; the applicant is a resident of District Haridwar; he has no criminal history; he is in custody since 18.09.2018; the charge sheet has already been submitted and main witnesses had already been examined, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence; the trial is at halt due to the spread of COVID-19, pandemic.
5. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application, however, he fairly admits that the applicant has no criminal history.
6. Bail is the rule and the 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. There is nothing on record to indicate that the 3 applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
7. 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 opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant 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) the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.
10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 26.06.2020 JKJ/Neha