AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Kumar Verma, J
Present Second Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 354 and Section 376 (2) (d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) in connection with Case Crime No. 344 of 2023 registered at police station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.
The First Information Report was registered under Section 354 IPC. The First Anticipatory Bail Application was filed by the applicant for Anticipatory Bail under Section 354 IPC. During the course of investigation, Section 376 (2) (d) IPC has been added. Therefore, on the request of the applicant, the First Anticipatory Bail Application was dismissed on 01.09.2023 by granting liberty to file a fresh Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as per law.
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21</li> The present Anticipatory Bail Application was listed for the first time on 05.09.2023. On the said date, learned counsel for the State had sought one week’s time to get instruction and learned counsel for the victim had sought one week’s time to file objection to the Anticipatory Bail Application. The date was fixed for today i.e. on 19.09.2023.
Challenging the said order dated 05.09.2023, the applicant had filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11555 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On 13.09.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the order as hereunder:-
“Inasmuch as the present Special Leave Petition has been filed against the non-granting of interim protection before the next date of hearing i.e. 19.09.2023, we deem it appropriate to grant it till such time. We are of the view that there is no need to hear the respondents as it will take more time apart from hearing an interim measure. In such view of the matter, the special leave petition stands disposed of after giving interim protection to the petitioner till 18.09.2023.
We request the High Court to dispose of the SABA No. 34 of 2023 on next date of hearing i.e. 19.09.2023.
The special leave petition is disposed of on the above terms along with pending application(s), if any.”
Objection filed by the victim is taken on record.
As per the First Information Report dated 27.08.2023, informant was working as a nurse in the hospital of the applicant for the last one month. On 25.08.2023, she suffered a stomach pain. She was checked up by the applicant (doctor) at around 7:30 p.m. There was no female nurse present at that time. He touched her private part. She informed senior nurse about the incident. On 26.08.2023, applicant called her to his cabin and molested her in the same manner. When she protested, he threatened to terminate her employment.
Learned counsel for the State and learned Senior Advocate appearing for the victim have opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application. They submit that during the course of investigation and after perusing the CCTV footage, Section 376 (2) (d) IPC has been added.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, contended that the CCTV footage/screenshot dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure No. 5 to the Anticipatory Bail Application) reveals that after complaint of pain in abdomen, when the informant was checked in front of senior nurse, a deep scar was seen by the applicant and upon being asked she told that she had to remove her uterus for some medical reasons and while leaving from the applicant’s checkup room, the informant was seen smiling and smirking and her facial expressions do not correspond of abdominal pain.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, leaned Senior Advocate further submits that if such act would have been committed by the applicant then the informant could have complaint on the same day or the next day. The entire incident was planted on the fact that she was told not to meet the boy who came to meet her in the hospital. He further contended that the CCTV footage/screenshot dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure No. 5 to the Anticipatory Bail Application) has not been rebutted by the State or by the informant. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding.
Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Dr. Virendra Singh Chauhan, he shall be released on Anticipatory Bail on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer with the following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;
(ii) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available at the time of interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required;
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without previous permission of the Trial Court.
It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Second Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 34 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.