SHASHI SHEKHAR THAKUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks regular bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 61/2013 under Sec. 376(2) (f) /109/34 IPC registered at Police Station Connaught Place. The bail is highly opposed by respondent No. 2/victim. The State has filed status report, it is taken on record.

(2.) Ld. Senior counsel urged that the petitioner aged around 65 years, a senior citizen and resident of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, is in custody since 30.11.2013. Charge -sheet has already been filed and the statement of the prosecutrix is being recorded before the trial court. PW -2 to PW -6 in their statements before the Court have not supported the prosecution. In the complaint dated 24.04.2013, the prosecutrix has leveled allegations of sexual abuse/assault from June 1994 to July, 2005. She however did not furnish any plausible explanation for inordinate delay of ten years after turning major in 2003 to lodge the complaint. 'X' aged 28 years has graduated from a prestigious fashion designing college i.e. NIFT, Hyderabad and is a fashion designer by profession. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that despite grant of various opportunities by the trial court, 'X' did not come forward to record her statement. The trial is expected to take long time to examine. 37 witnesses relied on by it. The petitioner is to take care of his two young children including a daughter of marriageable age. There is no apprehension of the petitioner to abscond or misuse the liberty, if released on bail. It is further urged that in order to put his defence properly and effectively, the petitioner requires regular interaction with his counsel at the time of cross -examination of the prosecutrix. Reliance has been placed on Rohit Chauhan vs. State Bail Appl.311/13; Nirmal Vaid vs.State Bail.Appl. 1760/2012; Jagdish Nautial vs.State Bail.Appl.1317/2012; Kishan Singh vs. Gurpal Singh : 2010 (8) SCC 775; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana : 2013 (7) SCC 675; Bhagirath Singh vs. State of Gujrat : 1984 (1) SCC 284; Jagannivasan vs. State of Kerala : 1995 Supl.(3) SCC 204; Rajesh Patel vs.State of Jharkhand : 2013 (2) SCC (Crl.) 279; Raju vs.State of MP : 2008 (15) SCC 133; Abbas Ahmad Chaudhary vs. State of Assam : 2010 (12) SCC 115; Bhardresh Bipinbhai Seth vs. State of Gujrat : 2015(9) SCALE 403; Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI : 2012 (1) SCC.

(3.) Complainant's counsel refuting the contentions vigorously contended that the petitioner has been charged with a heinous crime of rape under Sec. 376(2) (f) /109/34 IPC. 'X' has moved this court for amendment of the charge and to proceed against him for the crime u/s 313 and 377 IPC too. Earlier the petitioner had not joined the investigation and non -bailable warrants were issued for his arrest. There is highly likelihood of his fleeing from justice if enlarged on bail. Meena Mishra, petitioner's family member, is still to be examined and there is a likelihood of the petitioner to exert pressure on her. The victim being a married lady with an infant daughter is vulnerable to all kinds of threats and pressure from the accused, who has criminal antecedents and was previously involved in a murder case. It is further urged that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal. The prosecutrix had no support system to raise her voice against the petitioner who occupied an influential position in the family and the society. Reliance was placed upon Court on its own Motion vs. Vishnu Pandit and Anr. : 1993 CriLJ 2025; State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash : (2002) 5 SCC 745. The State has also opposed the grant of bail as allegations against the accused are very serious and grave.