Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Rahul alias Asif - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Second Bail Application No. 6 of 2023, First Bail Application No. 983 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - The court granted bail to the applicants under Sections 328, 376D, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering the delay in filing the First Information Report, lack of criminal history, and the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed for regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 411 of 2022, where they were in judicial custody under Sections 328, 376D, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The First Bail Application of one applicant was dismissed as withdrawn.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance.
Issues: The delay in filing the First Information Report, lack of criminal history of the applicants, and the principle of bail as the rule and committal to jail as an exception were key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the lack of criminal history of the applicants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the two Bail Applications and ordered the release of the applicants on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
These two Applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 411 of 2022, registered at Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar.
2. The applicants are in judicial custody under Sections 328, 376D and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The First Bail Application of the applicant-Rahul alias Asif was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2022.
4. These two Bail Applications have arisen from one crime number, i.e. Case Crime No. 411 of 2022, therefore, these two Bail Applications are being considered and decided by this common order. The record of the First Bail Application No. 06 of 2023 will be leading file.
5. According to the First Information Report dated 30.08.2022, the applicants are partners in a company which is based in Delhi. The prosecutrix works in the said company. She went to Haridwar with the applicants on 27.08.2022. Applicant-Anil Kumar took her to his flat at around 5:00 p.m. on 28.08.2022, where she had taken food and drink with the applicants and their other companions, after which, she felt dizzy. Applicants raped her at night.
6. Heard.
7 Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant-Anil Kumar contended that the First Information Report was lodged with a delay of two days’ and there is no satisfactory explanation of the said delay. The prosecutrix worked in the said company with the applicants for last two years, but, there was no complaint against the applicants about any sexual harassment. Due to some discord, the First Information Report was lodged against the applicants with false averments. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. Applicant is in judicial custody since 30.08.2022. He does not have any criminal antecedents. Applicant-Anil Kumar is a permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
8. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel appearing for the applicant Rahul alias Asif, contended that the prosecutrix is a married lady. Applicant is in judicial custody since 30.08.2022. He does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar. Therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate further submitted that he adopts the remaining arguments of Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate.
9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail applications. However, he has fairly conceded that the applicants have no criminal history.
10. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicants behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this stage.
12. These two Bail Applications are allowed.
13. Let the applicant- Rahul alias Asif and the applicant-Anil Kumar be released on bail on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:-
(ii) Applicant -Rahul alias Asif and applicant-Anil Kumar shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any pers
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance.
The main legal point established is that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance, no....
Bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception – Refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court established that an individual cannot be detained without substantial evidence, and the right to bail is fundamental when the evidence against the accused is weak or non-existent.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
Bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception – Refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
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
