Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 173 (GUJ)

Krunal Devendrasinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat

2022-02-01

B.N.KARIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. The appellant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1934 of 2021 before the court of learned 11th Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases, Vadodara u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide Part-A-C.R. No. 11196004210549 of 2021 with the Gotri Police Station, Vadodara City for the offence punishable u/s. 376(2)(n) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(2)(5), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein the learned 11th Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases, Vadodara rejected the said application on 03.09.2021. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred said appeal u/s. 14(A) of the Atrocities Act. 3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 and learned APP Mr. J.. Shah for the respondent no. 1- State. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant is wrongly involved in the offence by the Investigating Agency. That, the bare reading of the FIR would clearly suggest that there was a love affair between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 was already aware that the appellant was married and was the father of one child. That, as per the FIR, the alleged offence was committed between 2019 to June 2021 whereas the complaint was lodged on 14.07.2021 and the explanation for such delay has not been given by the complainant. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 11th Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases, Vadodara. 5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the respondent no. 1-State have strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that nude photographs of the prosecutrix were taken by the present appellant and threat was given to the prosecutrix to viral the said photographs on the internet. That, under the threat, prosecutrix was compelled to develop physical relationship with the present appellant against her will and wish. It was further submitted that prima facie case is clearly made out by the prosecution. That, under the threat, prosecutrix was compelled to develop physical relationship with the present appellant against her will and wish. It was further submitted that prima facie case is clearly made out by the prosecution. That, the appellant is married, and therefore, the offence committed by the appellant cannot be taken lightly. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the respondent No. 1-State to dismiss present appeal. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant; learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the respondent No. 1-State, it appears from the complaint that complainant herself and appellant were serving in Reliance Trend situated at Natubhai Circle in the year 2019 and they were come into the contact of each other. Thereafter, their friendship was converted into love affair, at that time, the appellant informed the prosecutrix-complainant that he was married and was having one son also. Thereafter, at one point of time, as per the allegations made in the complaint, nude photographs of the prosecutrix were taken by the appellant and the prosecutrix was threatened to viral the video by the present appellant. Intercourse was made by the present appellant against her will and wish. From the contents of the complaint, it appears that with another threat, time to time, physical relations were continued by the present appellant with the prosecutrix. It appears that since lat two years such kind of relations were continued however no complaint was made by the prosecutrix. If we refer the document produced at page no. 46, the history given by the prosecutrix, it appears that with her consent, this physical relationships were developed by her with the present appellant. Photographs were taken by the prosecutrix herself and were sent to the present appellant. Thereafter, the appellant did not delete the said photographs and threatened her through video and blackmailed her. It appears that the prosecution was aware with the fact that the appellant was married and he had one son, even if also, she started her physical relationship with the present appellant and continued till filing of the complaint. The age of the prosecutrix was 22 years as per the complaint. It also appears from the record that the charge sheet is filed. The age of the prosecutrix was 22 years as per the complaint. It also appears from the record that the charge sheet is filed. Thus, considering the peculiar facts of the case, present appeal deserves consideration. 7. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned 11th Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1934 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that appellant shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; [f] not enter into the vicinity wherein the prosecutrix resides for a period of six months. 8. The authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 9. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 10. Notice stands discharged. 11. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Jail Authority as well as learned Sessions Court concerned through fax or email forthwith.