SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(J&K) 697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, J.
Romesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondents
Bail App No. 303/2021
Decided on : 17-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rozina Afzal
For the Respondent: Aseem Sawhney

IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty are fundamental principles in criminal jurisprudence, guiding the court's decision to grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.

Headnote:

BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - IPC SECTIONS 376, 343, 323, 354, 342, 506; Cr.P.C. SECTIONS 161, 164 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding sexual offences and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) concerning the recording of statements. It emphasized the presumption of innocence and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, and that the purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence at trial rather than to punish them before conviction.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought bail after being arrested for alleged offences under Sections 376, 343, and 323 IPC. The prosecution claimed the applicant attempted to rape the complainant, but the complainant's statements varied, and she had previously executed a compromise deed with the applicant's son. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated and that the complainant's second statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was invalid.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant's initial statements did not support the allegations of rape, and the subsequent change in her testimony appeared motivated by personal circumstances. The court noted the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, leading to the conclusion that bail should be granted.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the allegations against him and the circumstances surrounding the complainant's statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the grant of bail is the rule, and imprisonment before conviction is punitive. It emphasized that the purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence at trial and that the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously.

Final Decision: The application for bail was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail subject to specific conditions, including the requirement to appear in court and not tamper with witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

TASHI RABSTAN, J.

1. The applicant has moved this application for seeking grant of bail in case FIR No. 75/2021 registered with Police Station, Domana for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 376/343/323 IPC, who is in custody since 03.07.2021. It is contended that the applicant has earlier also filed an application for grant of bail before the learned Fast Track court Jammu, which came to be dismissed on 14.09.2021.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 06.02.2021 the prosecutrix was locked in the room for two days and tried to rape her by force, however, she had a narrow escape and on 09.02.2021 the prosecutrix approached the SHO, Police Station, Domana for registering complaint against the accused under Section 376/511 IPC but the SHO did not registered the complaint rather he asked the complainant to compromise.

3. The Police Station, Domana, accordingly, registered FIR No. 75/2021 under Section 376/511 IPC against the applicant as well as husband of the prosecutrix, namely, Pawan Kumar and during the course of investigation the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and medical examination of the victim from the District Hospital, Sarwal, Jammu was conducted and the medical report was also obtained and subsequently statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded before the learned Sub-Registrar, Munsiff, Jammu. As per the site plan, statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical report, the offences under Section 354, 342, 323, 506 IPC have been added, however, the offences under Section 376, 511 IPC have been deleted. It is further averred that during the investigation, the offences under Section 342/323/506 IPC have been proved against the accused, namely, Pawan Kumar, S/o Romesh Kumar R/o Maniyal Brahmana, Tehsil Marh, District Jammu and offences under Section 354/342/323/506 IPC have been proved against the accused/applicant herein, namely, Romesh Kumar, S/o Bansi Lal R/o Maniyal Brahmana, Jammu and accordingly, applicant, namely, Romesh Kumar has been arrested and lodged in police lockup under police remand up to 31.03.2021 and the accused, namely, Pawan Kumar has been bailed out, however, subsequently, the petitioner has also been granted bail on 23.03.2021 which has been made absolute on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant has moved a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent court in which the complainant has received a notice on 03.03.2021.

4. It is further averred that on the direction of the senior officers further investigation of the case has been carried out and supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 29.06.2021 before the competent court of law and on the basis of the statement of the complainant, offences under Sections 376/343/323 IPC have been added and offences under Sections 354/342 IPC have been omitted and accordingly, the accused/applicant herein was again arrested on 03.07.2021 and sent to judicial custody.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG has filed objections and has resisted the bail application.

7. Ms. Rozina Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the commission of offences. She further submits that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant the matter was investigated and the statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 20.03.2021 before the learned Sub-Registrar, Jammu, who in her statement stated that on 06.02.2021 at 7:30 PM the applicant after being drunk attempted to force himself on her and threatened to eliminate her if she made a complaint, however, the complainant in her statement has not mentioned about any sexual assault or sexual offence. The complainant further stated in her statement that her husband beat her along with the applicant and locked her inside the room and on 09.02.2021 she

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top