Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 337 (BOM)

Saiju Varghis v. State

2022-02-02

MANISH PITALE

body2022
JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. - These two applications are filed by the accused persons, who are facing prosecution in pursuance of FIR No.111/2021 dated 28.07.2021 registered at the Ponda Police Station, South Goa, for offence under Sections 376(D) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The applicant stood arrested on the date when the FIR was registered i.e. 28.07.2021. They have remained behind bars since then. Their applications for grant of bail were rejected by the Sessions Court. 3. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of the applicants while Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned additional Public Prosecutor, has appeared on behalf of Respondent-State. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that in the present case, the FIR has been registered after a delay of about 52 days. It is further contended that the contents of the complaint would show that the victim had herself accompanied the applicants and that the victim knew the applicant Usman Sayed, as they had got in touch with each other at a social media platform. It is further submitted that a medical examination of the victim has shown that on the date of her medical examination i.e. 28.07.2021, she was pregnant and the duration of pregnancy was 10.3 weeks. By referring to the allegations made in the complaint and the date of the FIR, it was submitted on behalf of the applicants that the figures do not tally and that, therefore, it was prima facie evident that the allegations made against the applicants could not be justified. On this basis, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant ssubmitted that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State, strongly opposed the present applications. It was submitted that mathematical precision could not be expected in the said matter and condition of mind of the victim should be appreciated for understanding the reason why there was delay in registration of the FIR. It was submitted that in the complaint itself, the victim had described explicitly the manner in which the applicants had forced themselves on her and therefore, even if the victim knew one of the accused, it could not be said that she was to blame for the incident in question. It was submitted that in the complaint itself, the victim had described explicitly the manner in which the applicants had forced themselves on her and therefore, even if the victim knew one of the accused, it could not be said that she was to blame for the incident in question. It is further submitted that there was possibility of the applicants influencing the victim and the witnesses. It is further submitted that report of DNa examination was awaited and that therefore the applications deserve to be dismissed. 6. This Court has taken into consideration contents of the complaint leading to registration of the FIR. a perusal of the same does show that, even according to the victim, she had received a friend request from applicant Usman Sayed on a social media platform which she accepted and confirmed, leading to having chats with each other. In the complaint, the exact date of the incident is not stated although it is stated that the same happened somewhere in the first week of June 2021. The victim herself has stated that she accompanied not only the said applicant Usman Sayed but also the co-accused applicant Saiju Varghis on trips in trucks that they were driving. Both the applicants are said to be truck drivers. after such trips back and forth in their trucks, the victim has stated that she accompanied them in a car allegedly belonging to one of the applicants. It is claimed that the act in question took place in the car on the aforesaid day of the incident. 7. It is an admitted position that although it is claimed that the incident took place somewhere in the first week of June 2021, the FIR was actually registered on 28.07.2021. The Sessions Court has recorded that the FIR was delayed by about 52 days. apart from this, the medical examination report dated 28.07.2021 shows that on the said date, the victim was carrying pregnancy of 10.3 weeks. The duration of the pregnancy, on the face of the statements made in the complaint itself does not appear to prima facie tally with the incident in question. 8. apart from this, the medical examination report dated 28.07.2021 shows that on the said date, the victim was carrying pregnancy of 10.3 weeks. The duration of the pregnancy, on the face of the statements made in the complaint itself does not appear to prima facie tally with the incident in question. 8. although the learned additional Public Prosecutor is justified in contending that there cannot be any mathematical precision in such matter and that it could be a matter of trial, this Court is presently considering the material available on record to examine as to whether the applicants can be granted bail. It is an admitted position, that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. although, in the complaint the victim has stated that the applicants committed forcible intercourse with her, it is also an admitted position on record that the FIR was delayed by about 52 days. 9. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicants. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the State that the applicants may influence witnesses, can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 10. In view of the above, the applications are allowed in the following terms : (i) The applicants are directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 111/21 dated 28.07.2021, registered at the Ponda Police Station, South Goa, on their furnishing PR bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (ii) The applicants shall report to the Ponda Police Station, on the 1st and 4th Monday of each month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. (iii) The applicants shall attend each and every date of the proceedings before the Trial Court and they shall co-operate with the proceedings. (iv) The applicants shall not enter the Taluka of Pernem, Goa, during the pendency of the trial. (v) The applicants shall not leave the State of Goa during the pendency of the trial without the permission of the Trial Court. (vi) The applicants shall furnish the details of their contact numbers including mobile numbers and address before the Trial Court. They shall report any change concerning such details of contact numbers and address before the Trial Court within one week of such change, if any. (vi) The applicants shall furnish the details of their contact numbers including mobile numbers and address before the Trial Court. They shall report any change concerning such details of contact numbers and address before the Trial Court within one week of such change, if any. (vii) The applicants shall not themselves or through any other person indulge in any activity that would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. 11. Needless to say that violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall make the applicants liable to cancellation of bail. 12. The observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall proceed with the matter without being influenced by such observations in the present case.