This is a bail application filed by Roshan Pandey under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The High Court allowed the bail application, though it did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56338 of 2021
Applicant :- Roshan Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Roshan Pandey under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2021, for offence punishable under Sections 366, 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Sarnath, District- Varanasi, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by In-charge Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 26.11.2021.
Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 23.04.2021 has been lodged against the applicant by father of the victim stating therein that the applicant has enticed away his daughter on 20.04.2021, who is aged about 20 years.
After lodging of the first information report, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2021; medical examination of the victim was conducted on 06.05.2021; the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 11.05.2021. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on 31.08.2021. The applicant was arrested on 09.08.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she had gone from her house at 02:00 A.M. on 20.04.2021 and she travelled with the applicant by his motorcycle from Chandauli Railway Station and on the next day, i.e., on 21.04.2021 at 08:00 A.M. they have gone at Mundeshwari Temple and stayed there in Dharamshala and the applicant left the victim in a
rented room since 23.04.2021 but the victim stayed till 05.05.2021 alone and the applicant has gone to his parental house due to death of his mother. It is further submitted that one letter written by the victim which has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation which has been written by the victim to her father and mother in which she has not supported the prosecution case. It is next contended that victim had gone from her house on the date of her engagement with the applicant. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction and improvement between the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the presence of the applicant in a rented room.
He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) The age of the victim was 20 years at the time of the incident and victim was admittedly major;
(b) Victim had gone from her house at 02:00 A.M. on 20.04.2021 and she travelled with the applicant by his motorcycle from Chandauli Railway Station and several other places;
(c) As per prosecution one letter written by the victim to her father which has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation;
(d) Victim has not supported the prosecution case in the letter, it would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;
(e) Victim has resided with the applicant in a rented room for about 12 days alone without applicant;
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Roshan Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Ishan
Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.20 15:58:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged with offences of kidnapping and abducting and rape under Sections 366, 376, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the applicant, who was removed from bail by the Sessions Judge, is a fit case for release on bail.
Whether the lapse of time in filing the bail application in a serious case involving grave allegations can be condoned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ BaliayDistinguished¶20
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors.Distinguished¶20
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.Distinguished¶20
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.Distinguished¶20
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.Distinguished¶20
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Roshan Pandey
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Ishan Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
