High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46083 of 2021 Applicant :- Govind Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) The age of the victim is 21 years at the time of lodging the first information report. (b) There is material contradiction and improvement in the allegations of the F.I.R. as well as statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage. It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Govind Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) 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. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are 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. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 4.3.2022 Ishan Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.03.07 10:26:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Govind Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) vide order dated 19.08.2021. Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 12.05.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and other three named co-accused persons stating therein that applicant and first informant having love affair prior to 8 years of the incident and they are living as husband and wife on the promise of marriage and during this period physical relations have been developed between them. Meanwhile, the father of the first informant fixed the marriage of the first informant with another boy, but after persuading the applicant, the marriage of the victim was cancelled. On 25.04.2021, the first informant got an information that the marriage of the applicant has been fixed with another girl, then the father of the first informant went to the applicant's house and asked him to marry his daughter but applicant's family members denied for the marriage and when the father of the first informant asked the applicant's family to marry his daughter, they started demanding Bolero car as dowry and on oppose of dowry demand, they abuses the father of the first informant and threatening to dire consequences. The age of the victim is 21 years old. After lodging of the first information report, the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.05.2021; medical examination of the victim has been conducted on 03.06.2021; the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 02.06.2021. After recording the statement of the witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted on 24.07.2021. The applicant was arrested on 25.06.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the age of the victim is 21 years at the time of lodging of the first information report. It is next submitted that medical examination and statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after 20 days of the lodging of the F.I.R. It is further submitted that as per allegations of the first information report, the statements of the victim have been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has improved the prosecution case; firstly she stated that they are living as husband and wife but, thereafter, she stated that on 16.04.2021 applicant has made physical relations with the victim on false promise of the marriage. He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.