State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 534 of 2022 Applicant :- Aalam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar,Manoj Kumar,Zafeer Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Istyak Khan Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Zafeer Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Istyak Khan, learned counsel for the first informant, Shri. Munne Lal, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.354 of 2021, under Sections 450, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mainather, District-Moradabad after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 8.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.1 , Moradabad. 3. The applicant a named accused in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the father of the victim alleging that on the date of occurrence after mid-night he entered inside the house of the informant and committed rape of his minor daughter. Applicant was apprehended on the spot by the family members of the victim.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was a dispute between the informant's son and the applicant and only in order to put pressure, a false case was registered against the applicant. The medical report of the victim does not support the allegation of rape. He further submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. However, she has denied the allegations of rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. The victim even denied any acquaintance with the applicant, as such the entire occurrence was denied. He lastly submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.11.2021, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.. 5. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant who submitted that it is a case where a minor girl belonging to the suppressed class was raped by the applicant who was apprehended on the spot. The victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, he has not disputed that the victim has denied the entire prosecution case in her statement recorded before the Magistrate. 6. Law on bail. A. "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail" (State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay : (1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535). Power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner. (see Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh :(2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P.:(2016)15 SCC 422). B. "The considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out." [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118)]. "There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused" [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21]. In Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 89 Supreme Court has observed that, "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant." C. "....It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors:( 2001) 4 SCC 280). D. "....It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment...." (Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118) and also (Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr : 2022 SCC OnLineSC 458). E. "....There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused." (Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022)3 SCC501). 7. In the present case, it is alleged that a minor girl of the informant was raped in midnight by the applicant he was apprehended on the spot and was taken to the police station. This fact is corroborated by the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the another event which corroborates is the date the applicant is in jail i.e. 8.11.2021. The victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, she has absolutely denied the entire prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 8. Considering that the victim is a minor girl and she was not able to gain confidence before the learned Magistrate shall not be a ground to grant bail to the applicant. Also considering other circumstances that applicant was apprehended on the spot and there are serious charges against the applicant of committing rape, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 16.5.2022-SB Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.05.18 18:03:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad