State vs Rajesh Kumar

S.S. Grewal, J.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to cancellation of bail granted to Rajesh Kumar accused by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, on 25th March, 1989.

It was vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that Rajesh Kumar accused committed rape on the prosecutrix, aged 14 years, who was nextdoor neighbour of the accused, while the mother of the prosecutrix had gone out of her house. The counsel, appearing on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration referred to Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and another, 1989(1) Supreme Court Cases 715. In the said case the deceased was seen in flames and crying for help in the first floor of the house of her inlaws within five days of her marriage with the younger brother of the appellant. While the neighbours extinguished the flames, the inmates of the house did not render any help. In the said case trial Court had framed a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, but the High Court discharged the appellant mainly relying on the dying declaration as if it had been conclusively proved to be the true and faithful version of the deceased. The aforesaid authority does not directly deal with the question of granting bail to the accused, and is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. As such, it is clearly distinguished.

Perusal of the various orders passed by the trial Court would indicate that the accused himself was student, and initially bail had been granted to him because he had to take his B.A. Examination. Apart from that, the trial Court has also taken into consideration the medical evidence and the other relevant material.

It is also pertinent to note that no specific allegations have been made in the application for cancellation of bail, that after grant of bail the accused has, in any manner, misused the concession of bail, or has tried to win over the prosecution witnesses.

Another important aspect of the case is that challan in this case has been presented by the Investigating Agency after more than three months of the arrest of the accused. Thus the accused cannot be sent back to the Judicial Custody by the Court, as provided under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The impugned order granting bail to the accused does not suffer from any legal infirmity. This petition is, accordingly dismissed.