High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3094 of 2021 Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kunar Sharma learned counsel for the applicant, Advocate learned Additional representing the State and perused the record. Government By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.486 of 2020, under Sections 328, 342, 376, 493, 496, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sector- 39, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, victim who is major lodged FIR dated 2.9.2020 against the applicant through an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC dated 9.6.2020 alleging inter-alia that applicant is owner of "Wipro Path Care Pathology Lab," in which she was working. While working in laboratory applicant several times tried to touch her by molesting in a wrong way. When she protested, he started apologizing and told her that I like you and wants to marry you. When she refused to marry, applicant forcible made sexual relation with her in the lab by making her drink some intoxicant. He took her obscene photographs and also made video. On the pretext of said photographs and video the applicant started blackmailing her. F.I.R. alleges that on 7.2.2020 when her father settled her marriage with a boy, the applicant secretly took out the guy's number from her phone sent her photographs on his mobile. After that her marriage broke up. Thereafter on 27.2.2020 applicant married her by deceiving her, but later on she came to know that applicant is already a married person and is a father of three children. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely been implicated in this case. In fact, no such incident took place as alleged by the victim. Specific date of making alleged sexual relation has not been disclosed by the victim. So far as marriage is concerned it is submitted that in fact no such marriage was solemnized between the applicant and victim. Even the place of alleged marriage has also not been disclosed in the FIR as well as during investigation. In this regard it is also submitted that during investigation investigating ofÏcer also did not take pain to collect any material to establish the factum of alleged marriage. F.I.R was lodged after about six months and thereafter victim has refused for her internal examination. Much emphasis has been given by contending that even there is no material evidence on record to substantiate the fact that applicant had sent a video on the mobile phone of alleged boy with whom marriage of victim was settled. Lastly referring the list of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet, it is pointed out that investigating ofÏcer has not conducted fair investigation in the matter. The charge sheet was submitted against the applicant on 7.10.2020 only after recording the statement of complainant, which cannot be said to be a proper investigation in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant stretching his argument submits that the proper investigation is one or the essentials of the criminal justice system and an integral facet of rule of law. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2020 having no criminal history to his credit. Lastly it is submitted that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the victim is major and investigating ofÏcer did not collect material evidence to ensure fair investigation in support of the allegations levelled by the victim against the applicant. In a criminal offence fair and transparent investigation is also the right of accused as well as victim. Under the facts and circumstances of the case possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Rohit Kumar 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:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (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 ofÏcer 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. 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. 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. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 18.5.2022 M. Tarik Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.05.19 16:54:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad