IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Hariom Sharma – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12379 of 2022
Decided On : 31-5-2022
BAIL - Criminal Law - Section 376/34 IPC - Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Section 344 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 376/34 IPC and Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the context of the bail application. The court also highlighted the societal interest and the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the rights of the victim and accused. The court emphasized the accountability of complainants and the seriousness of dispensation of justice in a criminal trial.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 661 of 2020, under Section 376/34 IPC, P.S. Anoopshahr, District Bulandshahr. The victim had initially made allegations of rape but later turned hostile and denied the prosecution version.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail considering the nature of the offence, evidence, and the fact that the victim had turned hostile. The court also emphasized the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the rights of the victim and accused, and highlighted the accountability of complainants in criminal trials.
Issues: The issues revolved around the bail application, the victim's initial allegations of rape, her subsequent denial of the prosecution version, and the accountability of complainants in criminal trials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the offence, the evidence presented, and the fact that the victim had turned hostile. The court also emphasized the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the rights of the victim and accused, and highlighted the accountability of complainants in criminal trials.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure cooperation in the trial and to prevent involvement in criminal activities. The court also emphasized the need for accountability of complainants and the seriousness of dispensation of justice in criminal trials.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 661 of 2020, under Section 376/34 IPC, P.S. Anoopshahr, District Bulandshahr seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23073 of 2021 on the ground that victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against all the three accused person and in the vagina of the victim a circular wooden piece of 12 cm long and 2.5 cm in circumference was found.
4. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the evidence of the victim has been recorded before the trial court on 30.07.2021 as PW-1 in which she has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. She stated that she had made the allegation of rape in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her husband and police. It is also pointed out that other co-accused namely, Solanki Sharma and Rajesh Sharma have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2022 and 26.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52622 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36862 of 2021, respectively. The case of the applicant stands on better footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 29.12.2020.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that possibility of winning over of the victim cannot be ruled out, but does not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused as well as considering the fact that the victim in her evidence before the trial court has not supported the prosecution case and that the other co-accused namely Solanki Sharma and Rajesh Sharma have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
7. Let the applicant-Hariom Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.
8. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
10. Before parting with this case, I would like to observe that nowadays the practice of stating falsehood are being increased and the same is on higher side. On account of allegation of rape against the applicant, the image of the applicant has been tarnish
The judgment emphasizes the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the rights of the victim and accused, and highlights the accountability of complainants in criminal trials.
The court granted bail due to contradictions in the victim's statements and the applicant's lengthy pre-trial detention, emphasizing the need for fair trial rights.
The court established that bail can be granted based on the progress of the trial and the principle of not unduly punishing a defendant pre-trial.
Bail may be granted when there are contradictions in victim statements and no criminal history, ensuring conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
Kidnapped and Rape -Nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and submissions of learned counsel for parties, court view that applicant has made out a case for bail
Applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate prosecution witness - Applicant-accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fa....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the victim's statements, medical examination reports, and the legal provisions of Section 375 (a) of I.P.C. and Section 29....
Even slightest penetration of penis into vagina without rupturing the hymen would constitute rape.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.