Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Munish Sharma Alias Munish Gautam – Petitioner
Versus
UT of J&K & Anr. – Respondents
Bail App No. 3/2023 & CrlM No. 11/2023
Decided On : 13-04-2023
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 343, 506, 120-B; SC/ST Act Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, focusing on the definitions and implications of the alleged offences. The court highlighted the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need for substantial evidence before denying bail. The delay in filing the FIR and the circumstances surrounding the case were pivotal in the court's decision to grant bail, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Munish Goutam, sought bail after being charged with serious offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act, following an FIR that was registered approximately eight months after the alleged incident. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated due to a conspiracy by the prosecutrix, a 26-year-old divorcee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix had traveled to meet the petitioner and entered a hotel room voluntarily. The delay in filing the FIR and the lack of evidence against other accused led the court to conclude that the case against the petitioner was not strong enough to deny bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations, the delay in filing the FIR, and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the necessity of substantial evidence for conviction. It noted that the delay in lodging the FIR and the circumstances of the case suggested that the allegations might stem from a false promise to marry rather than criminal intent.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to specific conditions, highlighting the importance of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
JUDGMENT :
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
1. The petitioner after having been unsuccessful in obtaining the bail from the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi (herein after referred to as 'the trial court') has approached this Court for grant of bail in charge-sheet bearing No. 235/2022 dated 15.11.2022 titled "UT of J&K v. Munish Goutam" arising out of FIR No. 249/2022 dated 15.09.2022 registered with Police Station, Katra for commission of offences under sections 376(2)(n), 343, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST Act).
2. It is stated that the petitioner, who is 20 years of age, after having passed 12th standard examination has found himself falsely implicated in a charge-sheet mentioned above pursuant to a well-knit conspiracy of the alleged victim, who is 26 years old divorcee and mother of one male child. It is further stated that FIR bearing No. 21/2022 dated 10.01.2022 for commission of offences under section 376(2)(n), 343, 506, 120-B of IPC and under section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was registered by Police Station Chidawa, Rajasthan and after completion of the investigation, the matter was placed before the Special Court for SC/ST, Jhunjhunu, which directed the sending of FIR along with other documents to the Police Station, Katra. On receipt of the letter from Superintendent of Police, District Jhunjhunu, SDPO, Police Station, Katra on 06.09.2022 directed for registration of FIR, which was accordingly registered as FIR No. 249/2022.
3. It was on the strength of this FIR that the petitioner was summoned and arrested on 13.11.2022, whereas the other accused were set free on finding that they were not involved in the commission of any offence. The petitioner filed an application for grant of bail, but the same was dismissed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 22.12.2022.
4. The bail is sought by the petitioner on the ground that the FIR was got registered by prosecutrix with the Rajasthan Police after a gap of about 8 months of alleged occurrence and the same is in fact the outcome of a deep rooted conspiracy.
5. Response stands filed by the respondents, wherein it has been stated that after the FIR was received by the Police Station, Katra, the matter was further investigated and the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner and summoned the father and mother of the petitioner, namely, Madan Lal and Sharda Devi, the maternal aunt- Champa Devi and one friend, namely, Rohan Singh. Rohan Singh, who was later on cited as a prosecution witness. During the course of enquiry, complicity of persons other than the petitioner was not established, as such, offences under sections 343, 506 and 120-B of IPC were deleted and also no offence under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was proved. However, offences under sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and under sections 3(1)(w) SC/ST Act stands established against the petitioner. It is further stated that the charge-sheet stands filed and the supplementary charge-sheet after the collecting of FSL report shall be filed separately.
6. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The petitioner has been falsely implicated by a lady, who is divorcee and six years older than the petitioner and further that even the charge has been framed against the petitioner.
7. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, as such, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. A perusal of the record reveals that the prosecutrix who is 26 years of age submitted an application to the SHO Police Station, Chidawa through SHO Police Station Airport, Jodhpur and Zero FIR was registered at Police Station Airport Jodhpur. The said Zero FIR was forwarded to SHO Police Station, Chidawa and Police Station Chidawa registered FIR No. 2
The presumption of innocence and the requirement of substantial evidence are critical in bail proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious allegations under the IPC and SC/ST Act.
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial must be balanced against the seriousness of the charges, allowing for bail in cases where the prosecution has not....
The court's refusal of bail reinforces that serious allegations of sexual offences require thorough examination at trial, negating claims of consensual relations based on prior friendships or financi....
Point of Law : Court does not mitigate allegations made by prosecutrix against petitioner in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, and first statement given to police.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the gravity of allegations related to sexual exploitation, blackmail, abuse, and financial exploitation, and the court's consideration of the legal....
Point of Law : Petitioner allegedly transmitted the obscene photographs of the prosecutrix to the prosecutrix’s brother bringing him prima facie withing the domain of Section 67 of the IT Act, 2020, ....
The delay in mentioning the petitioner's name, the prosecutrix's inconsistent statements, and the prolonged trial without the prosecutrix appearing influenced the court's decision to grant regular ba....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between false promise and breach of promise, and the legal principles related to consent and misconception of fact.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
