Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 98 (UTT)

Toshan Sahu v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-02-20

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. The applicant-Toshan Sahu is in judicial custody under Sections 323, 365, 368, 195, 504, 506, Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the Case Crime No. 310 of 2020, registered at police station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix went to Shantikunj, Haridwar with one Maniram Sahu in the year 2010. At that time, she was 14 years of age. She was raped by the named accused in the month of July, 2010. A written information was given by the prosecutrix to Vivek Vihar police station, Delhi on 02.05.2020. The case was registered in Vivek Vihar police station in zero crime number. The said FIR was transferred to Haridwar. The present applicant was not named in the said FIR. After completion of the investigation, a closure report was filed. Further investigation was conducted on the direction of the concerned Magistrate. Upon conclusion of the further investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present applicant and co-accused persons. 3. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) assisted by Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for State and Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sagar Kothari, Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi & Mrs. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the prosecutrix. 4. Despite getting ample opportunity to file objection to the bail application, prosecutrix has not filed objection to the bail application. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally. 5. Mr. M.K. Chand, A.G.A. and Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, submitted that prosecutrix had taken Rs.25,000/- from Hemlata Sahu in the year 2010 for her treatment. She needed more money. The present applicant, the husband of Smt. Hemlata Sahu asked to talk Manmohan Singh in this regard. Manmohan Singh told her that he would give money to her. On 13.03.2020, Manmohan Singh and the present applicant asked her and her mother to come to Raipur. She reached Raipur with her mother. They met the present applicant at Raipur railway station. He took them to a house. In the evening, he again took them to Raipur railway station, where they met Manmohan Singh. On 13.03.2020, Manmohan Singh and the present applicant asked her and her mother to come to Raipur. She reached Raipur with her mother. They met the present applicant at Raipur railway station. He took them to a house. In the evening, he again took them to Raipur railway station, where they met Manmohan Singh. Present Applicant and Manmohan Singh told her that they will give money for her treatment and will also get her a job. On 15.03.2020, they took them to Delhi. The present applicant and his wife Smt. Hemlata Sahu, Manmohan Singh and his sister Chandrakala Sahu and Hargovind tortured her and her mother and forged her to sign an application for registering a false case against the person named as accused persons in the First Information Report No.310 of 2020. After the First Information Report was lodged, they took her and her mother to Sunita’s house, beat her and threatened to kill her. 6. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the First Information Report was lodged against two persons. The Applicant was not named in the First Information Report. After further investigation, the entire nature of the said FIR was modified. The accused persons and the offences are changed. Four persons, namely, Smt. Sunita Sharma, Manmohan Singh, Hargovind Pravah and Chandrakala Sahu have been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is in custody since 28.05.2022. He is a permanent resident of District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Chargesheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and the applicant gives an undertaking that he will not seek any adjournment for cross-examination of the prosecutrix. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Toshan Sahu 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 the following conditions :- (i) Applicant shall not seek any adjournment for cross-examination of the prosecutrix. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Toshan Sahu 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 the following conditions :- (i) Applicant shall not seek any adjournment for cross-examination of the prosecutrix. (ii) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly, and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (iii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 10. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.