Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 167 (UTT)

Mohd. Danish v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-03

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.241 of 2019, registered with Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 328, 384, 376, 377, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. This FIR was lodged by the informant/victim on 17.05.2019. 2. In brief, according to the FIR, cousin brother-in-law of the victim had committed rape upon her in the year 2016 in absence of her husband by mixing intoxicating substance in juice and food. The applicant/accused took her vulgar video through his mobile, thereafter by putting her in fear of death, he committed rape upon her. He committed unnatural sex with her. He received Rs. 4-5 lakhs and Jewellery from her. 3. Heard Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 4. The applicant is facing trial. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; the FIR is lodged belatedly by three years; the applicant had neither committed rape with the victim nor he took any vulgar video; the applicant has no criminal history; the applicant is in custody since 25.05.2019; the actual fact of the matter is that the husband of the victim had taken friendly loan from the applicant and his family and when he was not paying the said loan despite of many requests of the applicant, the applicant asked their relatives to intervene; thereafter, with intention to put undue pressure upon the present applicant and his family, the false FIR was lodged. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the offences are grievous in nature, there is no reason to implicate the applicant falsely; the allegations as alleged in the FIR are supported by the witnesses, however, the learned State counsel concedes that the applicant has no criminal history. 6. According to the FIR, the applicant is cousin brother-in-law of the victim. In the year 2016, according to FIR, the applicant after administering her some intoxicating substance raped her and took her vulgar video. The learned counsel appearing for the State concedes that there are no evidences on record regarding the said intoxicating substance and said video. 7. 6. According to the FIR, the applicant is cousin brother-in-law of the victim. In the year 2016, according to FIR, the applicant after administering her some intoxicating substance raped her and took her vulgar video. The learned counsel appearing for the State concedes that there are no evidences on record regarding the said intoxicating substance and said video. 7. The object of keeping an accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the applicant/accused. The applicant is the resident of District Haridwar. 8. The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Honble Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, which may otherwise affect outcome of the trial, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions: (i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court. 13. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move the court for cancellation of the bail.