Point of Law: Bail allowed – Criminal Breach of Trust and Grievous hurt - Valuable right of personal liberty and fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.

1. The case is called out through video conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Atul Verma, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri Prem Praksh, Advocate are connected through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case.

3. The present bail-application is moved on behalf of accused-applicant-Ajay Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No.0117/2018, under Sections 323, 427, 328, 376, 504, 506, 354-D, 392, 406 of I.P.C. and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Hazaratganj, District Lucknow.

4. The occasion of present bail-application has arisen on rejection of bail-application of accused-applicant by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-Ist, Lucknow vide order dated 30.05.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Atul Verma, Advocate stated about the prosecution story as emerged from the first information report. In brief, the report is lodged against the present accused-applicant-Ajay Kumar Pal and his wife. Ajay Kumar Pal, the present accused-applicant was a bus driver attached with S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow. According to the victim of the case, the complainant met first of all from the bus driver, Ajai Kumar Pal at Charbagh, Lucknow because during city commute from Charbagh to her house, while boarded in the bus, her phone was missed therein, being driver of the bus, the present accused-applicant helped her in searching the phone. Subsequently, familiar relations were developed between them and accused-applicant used to visit the house of complainant to meet her family members also.

6. It is further complained of that on the pretext of some economical problems, the accused-applicant borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the mother of the complainant under promise to pay back the same within two months, thereafter, approximately Rs.10,000/-also severally from the family members he borrowed, time to time. The accused-applicant used to be on telephonic conversation from the complainant and her mother also and time to time used to visit them in their house. After some time, the present accused-applicant started ringing the telephone of complainant irrespective of time and enumerably also.

7. It is further complained of that when the borrowed money was not paid back either totally or partially by the accused-applicant to the mother of the complainant, she insisted to get the money back from him. The complainant when asked the applicant to pay the money due upon him, he refused to do so, pretending him to be in economical inability at that time and also threatened her not to tell the refusal from paying back to her parents. Subsequent thereto, on further asking to return the money, the accused-applicant once beaten her, snatched her phone and broken laptop but this could not be conversed to the parents by the victim because she was feared of the enmity as she was lonely child of her parents and did not want to create any mental tension for them. However, the complainant began to avoid picking the phone calls of the accused-applicant, whereupon he started to visit her in office, threateningly calling her outside the office.

8. Once, during such mischievous visit, the accused-applicant administered her intoxicating substance and when she came under the effect of intoxication, he sexually abused her in bus. During that incident, the accused-applicant filmed the entire incident of sexual abuse through videography. On the basis of videographed incident of sexual abuse, he began to threaten her of social defame and to prove her an unchaste lady and to spoil her life.

9. All these things were told by the complainant to her senior in office, subsequent thereto, the accused-applicant was removed from bus driving. Even then, the accused-applicant continued to make phone calls to the family members namely the sister-in-law, the mother and the nephew to hurl threats on telephone. He also threatened the father of the complainant. O