The weight of the victim's statement under section 164 CrPC and the need for accused's cooperation with the investigation and trial as conditions for bail.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - Ved Prakash, an unmarried boy, aged 24 years, incarcerating along with his two friends w.e.f. 11th May 2021, upon their arrest on the allegations that he, with their help, kidnapped and carried the victim aged 24 years, to his home, where during the night he raped her, have come up before this Court seeking regular bail because Ved Prakash were classmates; she had visited his home on her own accord because she was upset with her engagement with another person, and being upset with her visit, her family members influenced her to lodge a false complaint to break their relationship.

2. Earlier, the petitioners had filed the following bail petitions:

(a) Bail Application No. 63 of 2021, titled as Ved Prakash Vs. State of HP, Bail application No. 64 of 2021, titled as Pawan Kumar alias Raju Vs. State of HP and bail application No. 65 of 2021, titled as Duresh Kumar Vs. State of HP were filed before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi and the same stood dismissed on 27.5.2021.

3. In the bail applications, the petitioners declare having no criminal history. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioners are that on 9.5.2021 the victim along with her fiancee visited the Police Station, Janjehali and informed that on 9.5.2021 she had gone to do the work of labour. In the evening at 5:00 pm when she was returning to home then accused Ved Prakash met her and proposed her to marry with him. On this she replied that she was already engaged and as such could not marry with him. On this accused Ved Prakash along with two more persons forcibly carried her to the main road and put her in the jeep and brought her to the home of Ved Prakash. After taking dinner, accused Ved Prakash committed wrong act with her. On the next morning her parents reached there and bring her back to their home. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners referred to Para 6 & 7 of CrMPM 991 of 2021 Ved Prakash Vs. State of HP and contended that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioners and family.

6. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

7. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

REASONING:

8. The explicit stand of the accused Ved Prakash is that he and the victim were classmates and were in contact. The victim was unhappy with her engagement fixed by her family. On this, she, on her own, visited his home, for which she even walked for two kilometres. Ved Prakash lives in a joint family of fifteen members, but she did not complain to anyone. Given her age being twenty-four years, her conduct reflected her ability, her physical and mental capacity to understand and make her own decision.

9. Along with the status report, the Investigator also attached a copy of the victim's statement recorded under section 164 CrPC. The law is no more Res Integra that under Section 207 CrPC, the accused is entitled to the copy of the statement under section 164 CrPC only after the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence. Still, there is no restriction or bar on an investigating agency to bring the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC to the notice of the concerned Court by handing over its copies or placing them on record along with the status report; however, despite this, the accused cannot ask for it. In Miss "A" v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (Cr. A 659 of 2020, decided o