This application has been filed on behalf of applicant Kshitij Jain seeking his released on bail.
Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, Advocate has filed his power today on behalf of complainant, which is taken on record.
Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri V. M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the statement of the victim given before the Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. would indicate that she was deep in love with the applicant and both of them carried on their love relationship for a long period of time sprawling over years together. Their relationship transgressed the ambit of emotions and became physical after a certain stage and then sexual relationship between the two continued for a long period of time. Further submission is that the victim is a modern educated lady working as an Executive (Assistant Managing Director) in a company where the applicant was also working and that is how they came in contact with each other and got entangled in this relationship. It has been further submitted that the allegation made against the applicant is that he was already a married man having a family and he kept the victim under the promise of marriage and that is how she got trapped and in the hope that she would at some stage become the legitimate wife of the applicant she submitted herself to the live in relationship with the applicant. It is clear from her statement that during the period of her relationship with applicant even the father of the applicant was introduced to her and she thus knew him and talked to him also. It has also been admitted by the victim that in this process of continual relationship she had become pregnant also but the same was got aborted. The argument is that though the conduct of the applicant taken as such appears to be in breach of the conventional morality of the society and also cannot be vindicated in the eyes of law to a great extent but the overall tenor of the victim's statement is sufficient to demonstrate that the assertion or allegation of the victim that she could not know for so many years the married status of the applicant is too much to believe. It was not an ephemeral fleeting relationship which emerged and vanished after a few meetings and it also does not appear to be a case where it may be said that by playing some trick the applicant for some short-lived time succeeded to exploit the victim. It is an admitted case of prosecution that the live in relationship between the victim and applicant existed for years together. Submission is that it sounds highly improbable to suggest that for all these years she was just an innocent victim in the ignorance of the knowledge about the marital status of the applicant. Actually what is deducible from the reading in between the lines of her statement is that she was an equally participating willful consenting party all the time during this course. It has been further argued that had the victim been an illiterate village girl, the allegation of having remained ignorant for such a long period of time might have been accepted but with the education which she possessed and being a high echelon in the executive hierarchy of a company such kind of claim that she did not know the details of the applicant as to what was his family status, bristles with implausible and incredible propositions. Submission is that actually all the while during the course of this relationship the fact of applicant being a married man was quite well known to the victim but just because of the passionate infatuation, which existed in between the two, they continued such relationship. Both the applicant and the victim were working together in the same company and even this much is admitted by victim that the applicant used to introduce the victim to people as his wife. It is not a case where the victim was not allowed to come in contact of people who knew the applicant or that applicant may be accused of managing a situation where for all these long years the victim was kept at a safe distance from all or any of the men who knew or might know the applicant or his married status. As has already been observed that the victim was allowed to meet even his own father, it appears quite unpalatable to suggest that a working lady of such class was so naive and coy that for all this prolix period of time she continued her sexual relationship with applicant just under the false belief that the applicant must have been an eligible bachelor. It has been further pointed out that subsequently at some stage even after lodging the F.I.R. against applicant, a compromise was also struck in between the parties and in a writ petition, which was filed by the applicant here in the High Court, the victim had filed an affidavit affirming the aforesaid fact of compromise. Attention was drawn by the counsel in this regard to Annexure No.6 annexed along with this application, in which it has been averred by the victim that she did not want to pursue the case against the applicant and, in between the applicant as well as the victim or between the petitioners and respondents, a mutual amicable settlement has already been arrived at and therefore the proceedings going on against the applicant may be quashed. But according to the counsel, later on, as the applicant failed to live up to the blackmailing demands of victim the compromise got fizzled out. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has also been contended that applicant is an employed person in the company and is Sales Manager and his father is also a retired officer of Indian Revenue Services and certainly the applicant is not going to flee from the course of justice and is ready to face trial on whatever conditions the court deems fit to impose. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the conduct of the applicant in physically exploiting the victim is highly immoral and illegal both. It is not impossible that a clever tricky person may succeed to keep a particular woman in dark about his actual marital status and it is not unknown in the society that such exploitations are taking place at times and as the victim had no reasons to disbelieve the applicant being in love with him, she continued being subjected to sexual relationship which amounts to rape and it also appears from her statement that even his father was having a complicity in the whole situation as he did not bring his son on the right track and kept encouraging him. Further submission is that the affidavit relied upon by the applicant was also a part and consequence of the same trap and as the applicant had once again promised to keep the victim as his wife together with his own earlier wife, the victim had agreed with that situation and happened to file the affidavit of compromise. But subsequently the applicant went back on his words and therefore the bail application is being opposed and the applicant does not deserve bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Kshitij Jain, involved in Case Crime No.1042/2015, u/s 376, 377, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.-Kasna, District-Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall personally appear once in the first week of every month in the concerned Police Station. In case of any default, the In-charge, Police Station shall forthwith inform the concerned court about this breach.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 21.10.2016 M. Kumar