Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Preetam Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No.2569 of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2020
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant, for the Appellant; Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that personal liberty is a fundamental right and should only be curtailed when imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant charged with offenses under Sections 376, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C. considering the absence of prima facie material to support the allegation that the applicant would influence prosecution witnesses and emphasizing that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application in connection with a case involving offenses under Sections 376, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C. The victim alleged that the applicant forcibly committed rape and threatened to release an obscene video of her.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during investigation is to secure attendance and that bail is the rule, while committal to jail is an exception.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the complaint, contradictions in the victim's statements, and the absence of evidence of entry into the alleged location.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right and should only be curtailed when imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, with the condition to attend the trial court regularly.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.387 of 2019, registered with Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C.
2. An FIR was registered on 27.09.2019 through an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short as the Code). According to the FIR, on 04.04.2019, the victim booked a car for site seeing. The present applicant was owner and driver of the car. The victim took the mobile number of the applicant in order to call his vehicle as and when required by the victim. The victim and the applicant started calling each other. On 06.04.2019, the victim visited the zoo in the car of the applicant. On 09.04.2019, the applicant called the victim on phone and told that a birthday party of his friend was organized on the same day i.e. on 09.04.2019 and requested the victim to attend the function. The victim reached the birthday place i.e. Akansha Guest House at 11.30 a.m., but there was no party. The applicant and victim were in a room of the said Guest House. The applicant forcibly committed rape upon her in the said room. The applicant also pressurized her to associate with his other friends for physical relationship. Anyhow, the victim escaped from the spot. Thereafter, the applicant kept on calling the victim by saying that he had made the obscene video of the victim and if she did not obey the applicant, he will send the obscene video on WhatsApp. The victim visited the mother of the applicant and disclosed her whole story.
3. Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
4. The applicant is facing trial. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; the applicant has been falsely implicated; the victim is a married lady; there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations of the victim; there was vital delay of one month in lodging first complaint; the victim is older than the applicant; there is no evidence of entry of the applicant and victim in the said Guest House; there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code and allegations of the FIR; the applicant is in custody since 13.11.2019; during the investigation, the Manager or/and Owner of the said Guest House were not examined by the Investigating Officer and no obscene video was recovered during the investigation; the applicant has no criminal history.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. He submits that charge-sheet has been filed; if the applicant will be enlarged on bail, he will certainly influence the prosecutions witnesses. However, he fairly concedes that there is no evidence of entry of the applicant and victim in the said Guest House; the Manager and Owner of the said Guest House were not examined during the investigation; no obscene video was recovered during the investigation and the applicant has no criminal history.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that according to the FIR, the victim reached at the alleged birthday place by Bus, whereas, according to the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 161 of the Code, she was taken to the said birthday place by the applicant on a Bullet bike. According to the prosecution, first complaint was moved by the victim after one month of the said incident i.e. on 08.05.2019 and there was no any reasonable explanation about this inordinate delay. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim, aged about 24 years, is a married lady as she has stated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the learned counsel for the State has not placed any prima facie material in supp
