Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42213 of 2021
Applicant :- Sachin Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Singh,Mahendra Kumar Shukla,Sanjeev Kumar
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for first informant.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Sachin Verma, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 174 of 2021, under section 376, 344, 506 IPC, P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya during pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that in respect of incidents which are alleged to have occurred on 25.10.2018, 9.8.2019 a belated F.I.R. 5.7.2021 was lodged by first informant Nilendra Mani (prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 174 of 2021, under sections 376, 344, 506 IPC, P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Sachin Verma, has been nominated as solitary named accused.
In brief according to prosecution story as unfolded in aforesaid F.I.R., applicant is alleged to be guilty of dislodging the modesty of prosecutrix Nilendra Mani respectively.
After lodging of aforesaid F.I.R. dated 5.7.2021, the prosecutrix was medically examined on 6.7.2021. Her medico legal report is on record as Annexure-S.A.-3 to the supplementary affidavit. Thereafter, the satement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer on 7.7.2021. Same is on record as Annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit. Ultimately, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. which is on record as Annexure- S.A.-4 to the supplementary affidavit.
After completion of statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number, in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 09.08.2021, whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted under sections 376, 344, 506 IPC, P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Applicant is in jail since 8.7.2021. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. Prosecutrix is major as she is a practising Advocate. She is a consenting party. In case, applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
Learned counsel for applicant has then invited attention of court to the F.I.R. dated 5.7.2021 and on basis thereof, he contends that as per the prosecution story, as unfolded in F.I.R., the alleged incidents took place on 25.10.2018 and 9.8.2019. However, the F.I.R. was lodged on 5.7.2021. As such, there is a delay of almost two years in lodging the F.I.R. However, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statements of prosecutrix as recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., there is an explanation regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Placing reliance upon paragraph-8 of the judgement of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866, learned counsel for applicant submits that prosecution of applicant itself cannot be maintained. For ready reference, paragraph-8 of aforesaid judgement is reproduced herein-under:-
"8. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1].
In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the mercy of Accused No. 1, who was very rich and influential. Accused No.1 acted as a benefactor to the family and had helped them financially and otherwise on multiple occasions. Under such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident, especially when Accused No. 1 had employed his henchmen to keep the house and movements of PW1 and her family under surveillance. Moreover, no material has been brought to our notice by the defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was with the intention of false implication. Thus, the explanation given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted.
In our considered opinion, looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said delay was not vital to the case of the prosecution."
It is then contended that medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. None of the provisions of I.T. Act have been imposed against applicant. Therefore, allegations made in F.I.R. that applicant snapped obscene photographs of the prosecutrix which dislodged her modesty, is wholly concocted as applicant has not been charge-sheeted under Information Technology Act. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. Mr. and Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They jointly submit that in the present case, the prosecutrix is first informant. Her modesty has been dislodged by applicant. Material on record supports the prosecution story. Applicant is charge-sheeted accused. It is thus urged that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for applicant has invited attention of Court to the fact that entire criminal proceedings have been engineered to falsely implicate the applicant. He submits that applicant had submitted complaint against Devendra Kumar Sharma, Sub-Inspector of Police. It is thereafter that following four cases were registered against applicant.
(i) Case Crime No. 172 of 2021, under section 420, 500, 501, 504, 506, 110 IPC and U/S 66 I.T. Act, P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya.
(ii) Case Crime No. 174 of 2021, under section 376, 344, 506 IPC, P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya.
(iii) Case Crime No. 178 of 2021, under section 467, 468, 472, 420 IPC P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya.
(iv) Case Crime No. 179 of 2021, under section 3/25 Arms Act P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya.
It is then contended that except for the present case, applicant has already been enlarged on bail in other three cases.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record and accusations made as well as the complicity of applicant but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court finds that applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Sachin Verma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Arshad