The present appeals by way of special leave arises from the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in S.B.
It is the case of the prosecution that minor girl “XXX” aged 15 years and six months was studying in Class-X had got acquainted with a boy named Vivek and he seduced the minor girl and took her to Samleti Palace Hotel, Mandawar Road, Mahwa on February 24, 2021 and he along with his friends Deepak and Netram gang raped her after drugging and took videos of the incident.
It was 5 also alleged that again Vivek had raped her under the threat of video being made viral and was extracting money from her. However, the jurisdictional court took cognizance against Deepak @ Dileep Kumar @ Dipu by order dated 09.06.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 376DA of the IPC and Section 516 of POCSO Act and thereafter the case has been registered and accused 7 has been summoned. The applications for grant of bail filed by the respondents in the respective appeals came to be dismissed by the special court vide order dated 27.06.2022 and 11.01.2023 by the High Court. He would contend that victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned order passed by the High Court and would contend that fact of the complaint having been lodged 11 after a lapse of one year after the date of alleged incident was a glaring defect in the prosecution theory; she would also contend that during the course of investigation it was found from school records where victim was studying was present at the school on the date of incident and prima facie complaint looks frivolous; in the data record of telephone related to the accused Dileep @ Deepak obtained during investigation revealed he was found to be 40 to 80 KM away from the place of incident on the date of incident and prima facie it reveals he has been falsely implicated; the first respondent (Deepak) had no connection with or relationship with the prosecutrix and no call was ever made by him to the prosecutrix or vice versa. It is also contended that accused Vivek was known to the prosecutrix as is evident from various calls made by Vivek to her and during the 12 course of the trial in her deposition she admitted that she was getting calls from Vivek and Netram but there was no connection whatsoever between the prosecutrix and respondent No.1 – Deepak. Learned counsel appearing for the State, by reiterating the contentions urged in the counter 14 affidavits filed in the respective appeals, has prayed for the bail granted in favour of Netram being set aside or in other words, the appeal being allowed and has sailed along with the complainant. However, it can be noted that; (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations; (b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tempered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weight with the Court in the matter of grant of bail. (d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.
Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious of- fence. It has also been held that there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post 19 the grant of bail and are non-conducive to the fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail and this principle has been reiterated time and again and more recently in the Judgment of Ms. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of 20 bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system.
This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. The High Court thought it fit not to record any rea- son, far less any cogent reason, as to why there should be a departure when in fact such a peti- tion was dismissed earlier not very long ago.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/consolidation-of-firs-in-multi-state-fraud-case/
It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. 13 months for granting bail in favour of accused persons viz, respondents in respective appeals.
On investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against two accused 25 only, namely, Vivek and Netram, though in the complaint a specific allegation of rape has been made against Deepak he was dropped.
In this background, the contention or plea of delay being fatal to the prosecution when examined, it 26 would, prima facie, indicate that in the complaint/FIR which has been registered on 25.03.2022 relevant to the incident dated 24.02.2021 the reason has been assigned namely constant threat posed by the accused persons as stated in the complaint itself.
It all depends upon facts that may unfold in given circumstances and same would vary from case to case.
The fact that accused Deepak is the son of sitting MLA would disclose the domineering influence he would wield not only in delaying the proceedings but also in pressurizing the witnesses to either resile from their statement given during the course of investigation or pose threat to them from deposing against accused on their failure to act according to his dictates or induce them to testify as per his dictates or to help the defence of the accused. The prosecutrix had also named Deepak having participated in the incident of gang rape in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Case Title: BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEEPAK
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002560-002560 / 2023
