Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 514 (JK)

Sushil Kumar v. Union Territory of J&K

2021-09-29

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner, who is facing trial before the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in challan, titled, “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Jaspal and others” arising out of FIR bearing No. 150/2018 registered with Police Station, Nowshera under sections 370-A and 376 RPC. 2. It is stated that after filing of the challan, the learned trial court framed the charges under sections 370-A and 376 RPC vide order dated 27.12.2019 against the petitioner. After the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, the petitioner filed the bail application before the learned trial court on the ground that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and she has not deposed anything against the petitioner but the learned trial court dismissed the said application vide order dated 03.07.2021 and thereafter, the present bail application has been filed by the petitioner. 3. It is stated that the prosecutrix has not deposed anything against the petitioner and now only the formal witnesses are to be examined. The conclusion of the trial court may take considerable time and the petitioner despite being innocent is in custody. It is further stated that evidence can be looked into for limited purpose so as to ascertain whether the prosecutrix has deposed anything against the accused or not. It is further stated that the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than two years and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner has placed on record certified copy of the statement of the prosecutrix. 4. Response stands filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that on 28.07.2018, the prosecutrix lodged a written report at Police Station, Nowshera to the effect that she is a poor girl, her parents had already expired and she is living with her two brothers who are putting up at Panj Peer Rajouri in a rented accommodation. About one year back when she visited a shop at Bus Stand Rajouri for getting her mobile phone recharged, an unknown boy noted her contact number. Thereafter, the above said boy used to repeatedly call her on phone and compelled her to come at Nowshera on the pretext that he would provide her some good job in Nowshera town, by disclosing his name as Happy. Thereafter, the above said boy used to repeatedly call her on phone and compelled her to come at Nowshera on the pretext that he would provide her some good job in Nowshera town, by disclosing his name as Happy. Subsequently, said boy trapped her in his net and called her at Nowshera bridge, took her towards Rajal/Garan in bushes and committed rape with her and threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone otherwise she would face dire consequences. Thereafter the said Amritpal Singh @ Happy S/o Bikram Singh again called her at Nowshera and committed gang rape upon her with the connivance of Karamjeet Singh S/o Narinder Singh R/o Nonial in a room located in Nowshera town. Thereafter, the above said Karamjeet Singh contacted some more people of the locality including Bachan Singh, Dara Singh, Jaspal Singh and Karampaul Singh, Mohinder Singh, Jagandeep Singh, Pargat and Vicky Kumar and Sushil Kumar and all the persons mentioned hereinabove had committed rape/gang rape with her by taking her at different locations and some of them used her in earning illegal money by further supplying her to other persons. The above mentioned persons pushed the said girl into a sex racket by taking advantage of her poverty and being minor. On this the aforesaid FIR was registered and the investigation was initiated. 5. It is also stated that during the course of investigation the then Additional Superintendent of Police Nowshera completed all legal formalities and thereafter the challan was produced in the court of law on 22.10.2018 against Jaspal Singh, Karamjeet Singh, Bachan Singh, under sections 370-A and 376 RPC who were arrested in the case. Accused namely Jagandeep Singh, Mohinder Singh were absconding and the proceedings under section 512 CrPC were initiated against both the accused persons by the court of JMIC Nowshera. Total 05 accused persons were challaned in the court of law on 22.10.2018. Later on the challan was also filed against the petitioner on 15.10.2019. 6. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner since the prosecutrix has not deposed anything against the petitioner. Mr. Sethi read out the whole statement of the prosecutrix. 7. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, learned GA appearing of the respondent has vehemently argued that the evidence cannot be appreciated while considering the bail application. 8. Mr. Sethi read out the whole statement of the prosecutrix. 7. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, learned GA appearing of the respondent has vehemently argued that the evidence cannot be appreciated while considering the bail application. 8. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix reveals that she has identified all the accused including the petitioner, however, she has specifically named the other accused with regard to the commission of offence of rape. The petitioner's contention is that the prosecutrix has not deposed anything against the petitioner. In bail application titled Manoj Kumar versus Union Territory of J&K reported in 2021 (3) JKJ 393 [HC], this Court has held as under: “The Ld. trial Court has rejected the bail application in view of the bar contained in section 497-C of the J and K Cr.P.C. Section 497-C of the J&K Cr.P.C. prohibits the grant of bail if after the perusal of the case diary or report under section 173 Cr.P.C. the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds that the accusations against the accused are true. The section under reference does not bar the court from looking into the evidence brought on record after the commencement of trial otherwise it would be a travesty of justice if the accused has to remain in jail till the conclusion of trial even when the prosecution has failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence against the accused and the accused has to wait for his release till the final verdict of the court. Needless to say that the court while deciding bail application is not required to appreciate the evidence.” 9. While considering bail application, the court has not to return any finding with regard to the innocence or guilt of the accused but at the same time in view of the statement of the prosecutrix, at this stage it cannot be said as to whether she has completely exonerated the petitioner or not and further that the allegations against the petitioner are true or not. Be that as it may, the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused till he is held guilty. In view of the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and the petitioner has been in custody for more than two years. Be that as it may, the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused till he is held guilty. In view of the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and the petitioner has been in custody for more than two years. The conclusion of the trial may take more time, so this Court deems it proper to grant the bail to the petitioner. 10. For all what has been discussed above, this application is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on the following conditions: (i) subject to furnishing of two local solvent sureties to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court and the personal bond of the like amount. (ii) he shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. (iii) he shall not contact with any of the prosecution witnesses during the trial and shall regularly appear before the trial court. 11. In the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the respondent can lay a motion for cancellation of bail of the applicant before the trial court. Needless to say that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall have no bearing upon the merits of the case. 12. Disposed of accordingly.