Shubham Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 123 of 2019, registered at police station Doiwala, District Dehradun.

Applicant is in judicial custody under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the prosecution is that Dr. Rohit, the injured, and the applicant got acquainted through the social app Grindr. In the month of June, 2018, Dr. Rohit, out of friendship, had asked him to come to his hostel. After coming to the hostel, applicant had asked him to have sex. Dr. Rohit had refused. Applicant brought some cold drink. Dr. Rohit got intoxicated after taking cold drink. In the next morning, he saw his mobile phone, which had a video of his having sex with the applicant. Applicant threatened him that if he did not give him Rs. 7,00,000/-, he would make the said video viral. On 07.06.2019, Dr. Rohit was sitting in the verandah behind his hostel room, applicant came there and threw acid on him, due to which, his left eye was damaged.

Heard Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.C. S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate, contended that the alleged offence was not committed by the applicant. He has been falsely implicated. The alleged video has not been produced by the prosecution. Applicant did not go to the hostel of Dr. Rohit on 07.06.2019. CCTV cameras are installed in the hostel. The prosecution has neither produced footage of CCTV camera nor produced the hostel register to show that the applicant had gone to Dr. Rohit’s hostel on 07.06.2019. Applicant is in custody since 27.06.2019, while the prosecution’s evidence is still in progress. The prosecution has already examined eleven witnesses till date, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is not a previous convict, and, he is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding.

Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State, has opposed the bail application. However, he has fairly conceded that the said video, CCTV footage and hostel register have not been produced by the Investigating Officer.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Shubham Saini be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.