0
click to view the judgement

“Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Bail Grant to Businessman in UAPA Case Linked to Maoist Funding”

blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: Union of India v. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay @ Sonu Singh

Case no: Criminal appeal no. 2024 @ Special leave petition (Criminal) No.2024 @ Diary no. 27308 of 2023.

Dated on: May 10

Quorum:   Hon’ble Justice Mr. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and   Hon’ble Justice Mr Aravind Kumar.

Facts of the case:

On 22.11.2019, at about 8.00 PM, the patrolling party of Chandwa Police Station during their routine patrol had stopped at Lukuiya More where the banned terrorist organization CPI (Moist) fired indiscriminately at them resulting in the death of four (4) police personnel. The arms and ammunitions of the martyred police personnel was looted and after raising slogans the moist fled away. One of the home guards, Dinesh Ram, who escaped unhurt rushed to Chandwa Police Station and lodged a complaint which resulted in lodging FIR against 18 named and few unknown persons. The Central Government directed the NIA to take up investigation whereby FIR was re-registered for the offences under IPC, Arms Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Respondent herein is one of the people apprehended who preferred appeal against the order of the Special Judge, NIA. The Union of India is now challenging High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi order dated 30.01.2023 whereby the respondent appeal was allowed, and bail was extended thereby setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi.  

Issues:

Whether High Court was right in enlarging the bail of the Respondent?

Legal provisions:

Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 353, 395, 396 and 427 of IPC and under Sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act and under Sections 25(1B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the UAPA Act.

Contentions of the appellant:

The respondent was a key partner of a construction firm M/s Santosh Construction and was closely associated with Regional Commander of CPI-Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu and provided financial as well as logistics support for the terrorist activities. The respondent managed the terrorist fund by showing dubious entries and investments in his company/firm’s accounts. The respondent is directly connected to the incident which led to the killing of four (4) police personnel of the Jharkhand Police. The search at the house of the respondent resulted in recovering unaccounted cash of Rs.2.64 crores for which there was no justifiable explanation. There are other three (3) cases registered against the respondent which gives sufficient grounds to reject the bail. The respondent and his associates are threatening the life of the complainant and pressurizing him to withdraw the case. The respondent is an influential person and would try to threaten or influence witnesses.  

Contentions of the respondent:

The conditional bail was granted on 30.01.2023 and even after lapse of more than 1 year and 3 months, there is no allegation of violation of bail order. The prosecution is seeking for setting aside the impugned order for the reason that respondent is involved in three (3) cases apart from the case registered by NIA. The case registered by Chandwa PS has resulted in acquittal and in the case No.108 of 2015, the respondent has been enlarged on bail by the High Court of Jharkhand. In the case No.4 of 2020, the respondent has been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Jharkhand. The purported criminal antecedent did not sway the mind of High Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail. The pendency of three (3) other cases would have no bearing for the continuation of the bail order granted in favour of the respondent.   


Courts analysis and judgement:

The High Court has scrutinized the entire material on record and has recorded a finding that name of the respondent did not figure in the initial FIR registered or in the statements of witnesses and most of the statements did not mention the respondent’s name. It is well settled position that an accused cannot be detained under the guise of punishing him by presuming the guilt. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, it was been held that the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the presumption of guilt. The broad probability of accused being involved in the committing of the offence alleged will have to be seen. In NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, it was held that it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise. Under the special enactments such as TADA, MCOCA and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is required to opine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is “not guilty” of the alleged offence. The satisfaction to be recorded is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is “prima facie” true. The court at the time of considering the application for grant of bail shall consider the question from the angle as to whether he was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The court must take into account the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence. In an order granting bail, reasoning should demonstrate application of mind. In Puran v. Rambilas it was held that at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. In Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. it was held that the considerations to be weighed by the court while granting bail in non-bailable offences and they are — the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances peculiar to the accused; possibility of non-securing the presence of accused at the trial; apprehension of witnesses tampering; the larger interest of the public or the State. The elaborate examination or discussion of evidence is not required. The Court is only expected to record a finding of the probabilities of the involvement of the accused in the commission of an offence. The respondent has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the High Court on 30.01.2023 upon conditions. The prosecution has no case that the stipulated conditions have been violated. In the absence of a strong prima facie case of violation of the bail order, it would not be appropriate to reverse or set aside order after a lapse of fifteen (15) months. In Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was held that considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bails are different and if conditions of bail is misused or bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions or bail was obtained by playing fraud then bail granted to the accused can be cancelled. The arguments that the respondent is involved in three (3) other cases and by considering that the respondent has been enlarged on bail or is on anticipatory bail would reflect that respondent having been enlarged on conditional bail and the conditions stipulated have not been violated and the appellant not seeking for cancellation of the bail till date are prime reasons for not entertaining this appeal.There is no other overwhelming material on record to set aside the order granting bail which outweighs the liberty granted by the High Court under the impugned order. Hence, interference is not warranted. However, to allay the apprehension of the prosecution, the prosecution can seek for cancellation of the bail in the event any of the conditions being violated by the respondent. The observations made is restricted to the consideration of the prayer for bail and the jurisdictional court shall not be influenced by any of the observation above. Subject to the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.
Click here to read the judgement




 

0

filing of delay condonation and restoration of suit by a stranger is unsutainable-SC

blog , , ,

Case title: – Vijaylaxman Bawe v. P & S Nirman PVT LTD


Case no: – Civil Appeal —-of 2024 arising from SLP 4034 of 2023

Dated on: – 8th May 2024


Quorum: – Justice B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta


Facts of the case:


The present appeal is against the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay whereby the High Court dismissed the revision application of the appellants herein filed for challenging the order of the Civil Judge for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration and seeking thereby to restore the Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2002, which was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The present appeal is concerned with lands situated at Sonkhar Village where there are rival claims with respect to the ownership of the suit land. The Government of Maharashtra, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, acquired the subject land for public purpose, and handed over to (CIDCO). In the year 2002, Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2002 was filed by the original plaintiff – Pravin Jamndas Thakkar (Kanani) (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs, in the trial court against the Government of Maharashtra,Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vijay Laxman Bhawe (Defendant No.3) (since deceased and now represented through his legal heirs), Union of India and CIDCO for relief of declaration that the acquisition is illegal, null and void, however if the court upholds acquisition then a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 12½ % Gaonthan Extension Scheme,as per the Gaonthan Extension Scheme of CIDCO.
In the year 2005, the original plaintiff – Pravin Jamndas Thakkar passed away. The legal heirs of the original plaintiff, through their Power of Attorney holder, filed application for condonation of delayand for bringing the legal heirs of the plaintiff on record. The trial court allowed the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for bringing the legal heirs on record in the subject suit. However, the trial court dismissed the subject suit for want of prosecution. On 7th November 2019, respondents No. 2 and 3, i.e., the legal heirs of the plaintiff, filed application, seeking condonation of delay of 8 years and 4 days in filing an application for restoration of subject suit. This application is still pending adjudication. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 1, a private limited company, claiming to be the “assignee”, filed an application, seeking condonation of delay of 9 years and 11 months in filing the application for restoration of the subject suit. The trial court allowed the restoration application. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants filed Revision Application before the High Court. The High Court, dismissed the civil revision application. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.
Issue:- 

1. Whether the trial court was right in allowing the application of the Respondent for restoration of suit?


Legal provisions:-

 Impleading Legal Heirs and restoration of suit under Cpc.

Contentions of the Appellant:-


The respondent No.1 is totally a stranger to the proceedings. When an application is filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit is pending since 7th November 2019, the learned trial court ought not to have considered the application filed by a stranger. The subject suit itself is a frivolous one. The suit land belonged to the predecessors of the appellants and it was acquired by the State and the compensation was duly received by the appellants. The proceedings for enhancement are also pending before the High Court. It was argued that entertaining the application of a stranger for condonation of delay is mockery of justice.


Contentions of the Respondent:-
The respondent No.1 has accrued a right on account of an Agreement entered between it and the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. As the respondents No.2 and 3 were not prosecuting the application for condonation of delay for restoration of the subject suit, respondent No.1 was justified in filing such an application.


Courts judgement and analysis:-


The approach of the trial court in entertaining the application of respondent No.1 is unsustainable in law that too when the claim of respondent No.1 is on an unregistered Agreement for Sale. Further, entertaining an application by a stranger for condonation of delay and restoration is totally unsustainable in law. The respondent No.1 has not even been impleaded in the subject suit and hence filing the application filed by a stranger, who is not a party to the proceedings, is totally illegal. If the approach adopted by the trial court is approved, any person can move application for condonation of delay and restoration of the suit even if the person is not a party to the subject suit especially when an application for condonation of delay and for restoration filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff is pending since 7th November 2019.
It is difficult to understand as to what was the need for the trial court to entertained the application after a period of two years. The trial court could have decided the application on merits. Though, it was argued by the appellants before the High Court that respondent No.1 was a stranger and the reasons given for condonation of delay did not constitute the “sufficient cause”, the High Court totally ignored the same. In light of the view taken, the reasoning given by the trial court as well as the High Court for condoning such an inordinate delay will not come under the ambit of “sufficient cause” as has been discussed by this Court in a catena of judgments. The order of the trial court as well as the High Court are not sustainable in law. The appeal is therefore allowed.


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.
Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement

0

Deposition of witness in the absence of accused when can be used under Section 299 CrPC- SC

blog , , , ,

Case title: Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi

Case no: Criminal Appeal No(S). 55 Of 2015

Dated on: 07th May 2024

Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavi and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case:

This appeal is against the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi against the conviction order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial Court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- (in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months). The accused appellant was married to Usha and had three children. Due to matrimonial strife, the appellant left his wife Usha and started residing at his village. Bhajan Pura Police Station received wireless message on 20th May 1990 and upon visit of police officials, Delhi it was found that Usha w/o the appellant was found lying dead with abrasions, scratches and other injury marks. The police officials claim to have recovered a handwritten note from the crime scene indicating that the Appellant was the killer of Usha. The prosecution examined Ashok Kumar Pathak who is residing in the immediate vicinity of House where the victim was residing with her husband, the accused and three children. The witness stated that, four days prior to the alleged occurrence of the incident, accused visited Usha and quarreled with her. On the next day, Usha’s sister, Sudha took the three children and went to her house. On 19th May 1990, prior to the incident, he had seen the spouses talking but the next morning since there was no noise he went to their house and found Usha lying dead. Sukhpal was not present.  The statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak was taken as a complaint and based on which FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC. The postmortem report showed cause of death as “Asphyxia resulting from manual strangulation”. A confession letter was found. The Investigating Officer collected two letters purportedly written by the accused appellant from the employer. The accused appellant fled from the crime scene. Efforts were made to trace him but later he was declared to be a proclaimed offender and a charge sheet was filed under Section 299 CrPC. The accused appellant was apprehended on 9th August 2000. His specimen handwritings were obtained and thereafter, the confession note along with admitted handwritings collected from the employer were sent to FSL for comparison. The handwriting expert opined that handwriting of confession letter/note was that of the accused appellant. The Trial court by relying on circumstantial evidence, convicted the accused appellant vide judgment dated 6th March, 2003. The appeal preferred by the accused appellant in the High Court of Delhi was rejected by Division Bench of High Court vide judgment dated 7th January 2010 holding that the confession note written by the accused appellant proved his culpability in the crime. The accused appellant has challenged the above judgment affirming his conviction and sentence through this appeal by special leave.

Issues:

Whether the Accused Appellant is guilty of crime charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 299 Crpc?

Legal provisions:

Section 302 IPC- Murder.  

Contentions of the appellant:

The trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave factual error by holding that complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak was examined on oath in proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. This finding is contrary to the record because the statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak relied upon by the trial Court and the High Court is actually the statement recorded by the SHO, under Section 161 CrPC. The confession note is a fabricated piece of evidence because the prosecution did not make any attempt to get the two admitted documents compared with the confession note. The handwriting expert’s report and the testimony of the handwriting expert is not reliable, since the expert did not give any opinion after comparing the admitted writings with the confession note (Exhibit PW-12/E). The evidence of Sudha is totally unreliable and not trustworthy and deserves to be discarded. The possibility of Usha having been murdered by some other person cannot be ruled out. The case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The entire chain of incriminating circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused was not established by clinching evidence and hence conviction of the accused appellant is unsustainable and should be set aside.

Contentions of the respondent:

The chain of incriminating circumstances is complete in all aspects thereby pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak recorded as PW-1 during proceedings under Section 299 CrPC was rightly relied upon as admissible and reliable piece of evidence. The non-examination of Ashok Kumar Pathak during trial is not a deliberate as the witness could not be traced by the prosecuting agency in spite of best efforts. The prolonged abscondence of the accused is the why Ashok Kumar Pathak could not be examined. The evidence of Ashok Kumar Pathak established the presence of accused appellant with Usha on intervening night of 19th/20th May, 1990, where after, Usha was found murdered and the accused was found absconding. The testimony of Usha’s sister Sudha establishes that the accused appellant used to quarrel with Usha suspecting her infidelity and there were repeated altercations between the spouses. The report submitted by the handwriting expert, proves that the handwriting on the confession note recovered from the crime scene matched with the handwriting on the two admitted documents collected from the employer and specimen handwritings of the accused appellant to the police. The prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellant through convincing chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence.

Courts analysis and Judgement:

The counsel representing the appellant criticized the findings of the trial Court and the High Court by stating that both the Courts erred in holding that the statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak had been recorded on oath in the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. The Section 161 CrPC statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak was exhibited by the Investigating Officer whereas was never examined in the witness box. The submission so made is without any foundation. The accused appellant was absconding and could not be arrested. The Investigating Officer made all possible efforts such as procurement of arrest warrant, attempt to serve the same at the village of the Appellant. The proceedings of proclamation and attachment were undertaken under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC but still the appellant was not traceable. The trial Court declaring the accused appellant to be an absconder and gave permission to proceed with the trial under Section 299 CrPC. This order was never questioned too. Apart from Ashok Kumar Pathak, three more witnesses, were also examined on oath in proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. Hence, the submission for the appellant that Ashok Kumar Pathak was never examined on oath in proceedings under Section 299 CrPC have been made out of sheer ignorance and without ascertaining the correct position. The deposition of any witness taken in the absence of an accused may be used against him if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured. In Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana it was mentioned that “before recording the statement of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, the court must be satisfied that the accused has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, as provided under the first part of Section 299(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak gives proof that the accused appellant Sukhpal was married to Usha(deceased). There was marital strife between the spouses on suspicion of infidelity of Usha. The accused suspected infidelity of Usha imputes a strong motive to the accused for her murder. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has established the following links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence: – (i) Motive; (ii) Last seen together; (iii) Medical evidence (iv) Confessional note; (v) Abscondence for nearly 10 years; (vi) Wrong explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC; (vii) Failure of the accused to explain death of his wife when only the accused and deceased were present. The view taken by the trial Court and the High Court in convicting and affirming the conviction of the accused appellant for the charge of committing murder of Usha is confirmed. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant’s bail bonds are cancelled. The Appellant shall surrender before the trial Court within the next 60 days to serve the remainder of the sentence.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.
Click here to read the judgement




0

Minor legal heir eligible for compassionate apportionment; but appointment upon attaining majority-Chennai High Court (Madurai Bench).

blog , , , , , , , ,

Case title: State of Tamil Nadu v. C. Arnold

Case no: W.A(MD)No.479 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.3875 of 2024

Dated on: 01st April 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan.

Facts of the case:

This Writ Appeal filed, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is to set aside the order dated 16.11.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.27247 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.23395 of 2023 seeking Compassionate appointment. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner and father, working as a B.T Assistant in a Government High School, passed away on 03.01.2016, while in service. At the time of his father’s death, the Writ Petitioner was 15 years and 6 months old. On his behalf, his mother made an application dated 02.01.2018, before the Chief Educational Officer, seeking compassionate appointment which was rejected vide Order dated 31.05.2023 on the ground that on the date when the application was made, the respondent/writ petitioner was a minor. That rejection order was challenged before the High Court. The learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, took note of the fact that the Rule issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023 was notified on 08.03.2023 and at the time of consideration of the application submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner the said Rule was already in force and despite which it was rejected in May 2023 ie., by order, dated 31.05.2023. Hence, it was an erroneous approach on the part of the Appellant employer.

Issues:

Whether it was correct on the part of the Respondent to reject the Compassionate appointment on 31.05.2023 based on G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment (Ku1) Department, dated 10.12.2014 when Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023 was already notified on 08.03.2023?

Legal provisions:

Writ Appeal filed, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent- lays down that any appeal can be made to the High Court provided it is not a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023- These rules govern the appointment of individuals on compassionate grounds within the Tamil Nadu Civil Services.  

Contentions of the appellant:

At the time of making the application seeking compassionate appointment, the respondent/writ petitioner, was only a minor who has completed only 15 years and 6 months. Therefore, at the time when he attained majority, three years period was over from the date of death of the employee ie., his father. Therefore, beyond three years period, compassionate appointment would not be considered. This rejection was based on Rule, dated 10.12.2014, of G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department and therefore, the said order of rejection ought not to have been interfered by the Writ Court.

Contentions of the respondent:

The Government of Tamil Nadu had framed rules for appointment on compassionate grounds under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023. The said rule was notified on 08.03.2023 and as per the said Rule 6, there is no minimum age limit for making an application. However, an appointment order could be issued only on completion of 18 years of age. These Rules were prevailing on the date of consideration of the application. Hence, the action of the 3 rd Respondent in relying upon G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment (Ku1) Department, dated 10.12.2014 was not right.  

Court analysis and judgement: 

Compassionate appointments are made to bail out the families of the employee, whose sudden demise would push the family to penury. Compassionate appointment is made depending upon the education and other qualifications of the dependent of the deceased employee and further no person can be employed in any organization, unless he attains majority ie., above 18 years. In most cases, when such an employee dies, the son or daughter or the dependents other than the spouse would be minor and therefore, it will take some years for them to reach the majority by which period the three years period from the date of death of the employee would be over. Under such circumstances, though the dependent or legal heirs would become eligible to seek for compassionate appointment but by then the period of three years would be over. These difficulties were considered by the State Government, and they bought Rule 6, the same is briefly mentioned herein. On the date of application for appointment. –  the spouse or medically invalidated Government servant or parent of the deceased servant, must have completed fifty years of age; and the son, daughter, brother or sister of the deceased or medically invalidated Government servant must not have completed forty years of age. There shall be no minimum age limit for the applicant on the date of application for appointment, provided appointment shall not be provided unless the applicant completes eighteen years of age.” Hence, under Rule 6, the maximum age has been prescribed, but minimum age limit was not prescribed. It was made clear that the appointment shall not be provided unless the applicant completes eighteen years of age Therefore, the intention of the Rule making authority is clear, that under no circumstances compassionate appointment should be denied to a family for want of attaining the majority of the legal heir/dependent of the deceased employee’s family. If compassionate appointment could not be given immediately, the employer can consider such application and grant/extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependent/legal heir upon his attaining majority. When the intention of the Government was made very clear and as the Rule was effective from 08.03.2023, the Rule should have been applied by the employer. It is due to this reason that the learned Judge interfered with the said order and given direction for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment.  Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed with no costs. The appellants to consider the application, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. When such consideration is made, if any similarly placed persons are there seniority is to be followed. In the name of following the seniority, the plea of the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be deferred or rejected and if in case there is no vacancy available, where he has sought, then as per the existing procedure, the request of the respondent/writ petitioner be forwarded, where similar vacancy is available and necessary orders to be passed. 


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement


 

0

At the stage of considering bail, Court to exercise utmost diligence in evaluating the prima facie allegations against the accused- Delhi High Court

blog , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Sunny Alias Ravi Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi.

Case no: Bail Appln. 3580/2023

Dated on: 29th April, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan.

Facts of the case:

The present application is being filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking a grant for regular bail in FIR No.255/2023 on 10.03.2023 for offences under Sections 376/354D/506 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is alleged that the applicant used to stalk the prosecutrix and claimed that he loved her. It was stated that after the prosecutrix rejected the applicant, the applicant had threatened her. It was declared that on 01.12.2021 the applicant had called the prosecutrix at GTB Nagar metro station, the applicant then had threatened the prosecutrix with suicide due to which the prosecutrix agreed to meet him and have regular conversations with him. In December 2021 the applicant took the prosecutrix to his friends house in Aadarsh Nagar, and forced her to have sexual relations with him for the first time. It was stated the applicant took the prosecutrix to a hotel named Welcome Hotel 5-6 times and forced her to have sexual relations with him. It is alleged that the applicant took the prosecutrix to Haridwar on April,2022 and allegedly married the prosecutrix there. Later on, the prosecutrix found out that the applicant was married and also had two children. It was also stated that the applicant would demand gifts from the prosecutrix leading her to give him nearly Rs. 1.5 lakhs in cash and many other items. On 07.03.2023, the applicant had called the prosecutrix when he was intoxicated and told her to meet him at Aadarsh Nagar Metro Station from there the applicant took her to the Welcome Hotel and forced her to have unnatural sex with him. A medical examination was conducted of the prosecutrix at BJRM hospital Delhi, and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Chargesheet was filed under Section 376/354D/506 of IPC.

Contentions of the prosecution:

It was alleged that the applicant used to stalk the prosecutrix and also claimed that he was in love with her. It is alleged that after the prosecutrix rejected the advances of the applicant, the applicant threatened her. It was stated that on 01.12.2021, the applicant called the prosecutrix at GTB Nagar Metro Station. When the prosecutrix reached to meet him, the applicant threatened her with suicide due to which the prosecutrix agreed to meet him and have regular conversations with him. It was alleged that in December, 2021, the applicant took the prosecutrix to one of his friend’s house in Aadarsh Nagar, and forcefully established sexual relations with the her for the first time. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant took the prosecutrix to a Hotel, namely, Welcome Hotel, about 5-6 times, and forced her to have sexual relations with him there. It is alleged that the applicant also took the applicant to Haridwar in April, 2022 for three days and allegedly married the prosecutrix there. Later, found out that the applicant was married and had two children. It is alleged that the applicant used to demand gifts from the prosecutrix and she had allegedly given ₹1.5 lakhs in cash, two mobile phones, clothes and two silver rings to the applicant, and also resorted to violent means when she did not pay heed to his demands. on 07.03.2023, the applicant called the prosecutrix when he was intoxicated and forced her to meet him at the Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, the applicant thereafter took the prosecutrix to the Welcome Hotel and forced her to have unnatural sex and beat her when she refused. A medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at BJRM Hospital, Delhi and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. The chargesheet was filed under Section 376/354D/506 of IPC. The Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the present bail, saying that there is a high possibility that the applicant could extend the threats to the prosecutrix’s family, and therefore, the bail application to be dismissed.

Contentions of the applicant:

The case that was filed against the applicant is basically to humiliate, torture him and to harass him and he has been in judicial custody since 10.03.2023. It was stated that there are material differences in the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. It is also contended that as clear from the contents of FIR, the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature and had continued for two years. It was further submitted that the custody of the applicant is not necessary for the investigation, as there are no chances of the applicant to abscond or flee from justice, and that the promise of marriage is completely absurd and untrue. Lastly, he says that there has been an unnecessary delay in the filing of an FIR which increases the suspicion about the allegations made by the prosecutrix.  

Issue:

Whether the Bail application filed by the Applicant is to be allowed?  

Legal provision: 

Section 376 of IPC- Rape the punishment is not for less than 10years, which may extend to life imprisonment and, a fine.

Section 354D of IPC- Stalking any man who repeatedly follows, contacts, or monitors a woman’s communication despite her clear disinterest will amount to imprisonment for three years.

Section 506 of IPC- Criminal intimidation.

Section 164 of CrPC- empowers a magistrate to record a person’s testimony or confession regardless of whether or not he has the jurisdiction.  

Courts analysis and judgement:

The Court, while considering the application for bail, has to consider the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie involvement of the accused. The Court is now not required to enter into the detailed analysis of the evidence. The bail is not to determine the guilt but it’s only a safeguard to ensure the accused’s right to liberty, pending trial. The court needs to maintain balance between securing the complainant’s interest and safeguarding the accused’s right. In the present case, the allegations levelled is that the Applicant had established forceful physical relations with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions on the false pretext of marriage. It is not denied that the prosecutrix had known the applicant for a long time. The alleged incident, for the first time, is said to have taken place in the month of December, 2021, however no complaint was made at the time. Thereafter, the prosecutrix continued to have sex on several occasions and even then, no complaint was made by her. The prosecutrix got FIR registered on 10.03.2023, that is, almost after fifteen months from the first alleged incident The Hon’ble Supreme Court Apex Court, in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188, held that Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story…” The prosecutrix has not mentioned date or time of the alleged incidents. The prosecutrix was a major and hence the consent of the prosecutrix whether vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry can be established only at the time of trial. The averment of the applicant that there are discrepancies between the FIR and Section 164 CrPC statement is also a matter of trial. At this stage, no evidence has been adduced to show that the applicant had made forceful relation with the prosecutrix or has issued any threats of making viral her photographs or has demanded money, mobile phones from the prosecutrix. It is apparent that the prosecutrix was meeting the applicant for quite some time before filing the complaint and wanted to continue their relationship despite knowing that the applicant is a married man. The decision to continue with the relationship points towards her consent. The actions at this stage, does not suggest passive acquiescence under psychological duress but implies towards her consent which is devoid of any kind of misconception. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra: (2019)SCC 608 has laid out as to when a “promise to marry” is a “false promise” or a “breach of promise”. The Supreme Court held that two propositions must be established to establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry ie the promise of marriage must have been a false, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered. The false promise must be of immediate relevance or bear direct nexus to the woman& 39 decision to engage in the sexual act. At the stage of considering bail, it is neither appropriate nor feasible for the court to draw conclusion, as to whether a promise of marriage made to the prosecutrix was false and in bad faith with no intention to adhere. This issue can be determined after an assessment and evaluation of evidence. It is imperative on the part of Court to exercise utmost diligence in evaluating the prima facie allegations on cases to case basis especially when there are contentious issues of consent and intent. Further, it is not in dispute that the antecedents of the applicant are clean. The applicant, is aged about 34 years and is in custody since 10.03.2023 and has a wife and two minor children to take care of. Keeping the applicant in jail will not serve any useful purpose. 
In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case; b. He shall not contact the complainant other witnesses; c. The applicant shall not travel out of the country without prior permission; d. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence nor indulge in any unlawful act or omission which would prejudice the trial. The applicant to appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed. The applicant shall not visit the locality where the prosecutrixy resides. The applicant to provide the address where he would be residing and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; h. The applicant to give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone active and switched on at all times. In the event of any FIR/ DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, State can seek redressal by filing an application for cancellation of bail. The observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the only the present bail application and should have no bearing on the outcome of the Trial and shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The bail application is accordingly, allowed.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.   

Click here to read the judgement

1 2 3 … 7