High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51092 of 2022 Applicant :- Aditya @ Dhanu Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Mani Misra,Tejasvi Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that applicant is guilty of an offence which can be classified as "moral turpitude." Applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused. The statements of the prosecutrix as recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr. P. C. clearly implicate the applicant in the crime in question. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that medical evidence does not support the prosecution story, the statements of the prosecutrix as recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr. P. C. do not fall in the category of impeccable evidence, the law laid down by Apex Court in Phool Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2022) 2 SCC, 74, the alleged occurrence having taken place in the house of applicant when his entire family members were present as explicit from the statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr. P. C. but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Aditya @ Dhanu Rawat involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law. (v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 15.11.2022 HSM Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.11.16 17:22:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Mr. Tejasvi Misra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Aditya seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Sections 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act and Section 67 IT Act, P.S. Bhatparrani, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 21.3.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 25.7.2022 was lodged by first informant Gangajali Devi and was registered as Case Crime No. 019 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Sections 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act and Section 67 IT Act, P.S. Bhatparrani, District Deoria. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely Aditya alias Dhannu Rawat, (applicant herein), Sangeeta Devi, Munna Rawat and Munnu Rawat have been nominated as named accused. It is appropriate to mention here that that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed by first informant Gangajali Devi which was allowed by concerned Magistrate. Resultantly, aforementioned F.I.R. came to be registered. Gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused Aditya alias Dhanu Rawat dislodged the modesty of minor daughter of first informant Neha in a clandestine manner.The other named accused are alleged to have threatened the first informant to marry the prosecutrix with Dhanu Rawat. After lodging of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. He examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Witnesses so examined have supported the prosecution story. Thereafter, the statement of the prossecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., wherein the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story. Subsequent to above, prosecution was medically examined. The prosecutrix in her statement before the Doctor has reiterated her earlier statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. However, the Doctor, who medically examined the prosecutrix, did not find any sign on her body so as to denote commission of sexual violence. With regard to the private part of the prosecution, the Doctor has opined as below:- Hymen Ruptured No injury. Ultimately, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C., wherein the prosecutrix rejoined her earlier statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer recovered the High School Certificate of the prosecutrix, wherein her date of birth is recorded as 13.4.2004. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 21.3.2022. As such, on the date of recurrence, the prosecutrix was aged about 17 years 11 months and 8 days. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that the complicity of only one of the named accused i.e. applicant herein is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 30.8.2022, whereby applicant alone has been charge sheeted under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act and Section 67A I.T. Act, whereas rest of the named accused have been exculpated. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, but he is innocent. Prosecutrix is also almost major as she was aged about 17 years 11 months 8 days on the date of occurrence as per the date of birth recorded in her High School Certificate. According to the learned counsel for applicant, medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. Statement of the prosecutrix as recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. clearly shows that prosecution case is highly improbable. Occurrence in question is alleged to have occurred in the house of the applicant when the entire family members of applicant were present in the house. Prima facie, it appears that present criminal proceedings have been engineered on account of an ulterior motive. Applicant is a young boy aged about 19 years and is in custody since 23.8.2022. As such, he has undergone 2 months and 15 days of incarceration. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.