MANU/SCOR/42755/2021 Source : http://www.judis.nic.

in/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

a
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1463 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 3608/2021)

VIKASH @ VIKASH KUMAR @ VIKASH KUMAR SINGH … Appellant

VERSUS
c

THE STATE OF BIHAR … Respondent

O R D E R
d
Leave granted.

This criminal appeal is against the judgment and order dated

15.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna e

dismissing the application being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28831

of 2020 filed by the appellant praying for bail in connection with

Mahila Police Station Case No. 10/2020 corresponding to GR No.

f
352/2020 for alleged offences under Sections 376D and 323 of the

Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Mahila PS case No. 10/2020 was registered pursuant to a g

complaint filed by the victim alleging in effect that one Vinayak

Singh had been stalking her, professing that he had fallen in love

with her. On 06.01.2020 at around 7.30 p.m. the victim had gone to h

a cafe in a mall. Vinayak Singh approached her at the Cafe and

asked her to come out of the cafe for five minutes as he wanted to

08-09-2022 PSL Chambers (Downloaded from www.manupatra.com)

MANU/SCOR/42755/2021 Source : http://www.judis.nic.in/

speak to her. The victim went near the parking lot. Vinayak Singh
a
came in a car. He and his friend Sandeep Kumar who had been

sitting at the front seat pointed a pistol at the victim and told

her to sit in the car and talk to them for five minutes. It was

alleged that two other friends also came and stood at the side. b

Thereafter, Vinayak Singh locked the car. The shrieks of the victim

could not be heard from outside. The victim was allegedly taken to

a flat near P&M Mall where she was raped and the act of rape was c

videographed. On the face of the complaint, only Vinayak Singh had

raped the victim.

It is the case of the appellant that he had nothing to do with d

the victim. He had only helped to push the car along with the the

guard at the parking lot as there was some mechanical problem with

the car. In fact, in her statement before the Police under Section e
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no allegation

against the appellant though he has been named. The appellant

contends that the Close Circuit Television footage would show that
f
the petitioner only helped to push the car.

Our attention is drawn to the fact that the other co-accused

persons namely Kush Kumar and Sandeep Kumar have been granted bail,
g
significantly Sandeep Kumar is alleged to have attempted to rape

the victim and Kush Kumar is alleged to have taken on rent, the

premises at which the crime took place.

h
The High Court rejected the application of the appellant with

the observation that grant of bail is not a mechanical act and no

08-09-2022 PSL Chambers (Downloaded from www.manupatra.com)

MANU/SCOR/42755/2021 Source : http://www.judis.nic.in/

Judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to

a
maintain consistency.

It is well settled that the Court granting bail should

exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter

b
of course. The discretion must be exercised not in opposition to

but in accordance with the well established principles of law.

c
While it is true that grant of bail is not a mechanical act

and orders of bail may not be passed only because some other co-

accused have been granted bail, but in a judicious manner as per

the principles for grant of bail, at the same time, the court d

cannot be oblivious of the nature of the allegations against the

accused vis-a-vis other co-accused persons let out on bail. On the

face of the complaint, Vinayak Singh approached the victim at G.V. e

Mall saying that he loved her. She claimed that she had been

avoiding the said Vinayak Singh. On the date of the incident, she

went to the Cafe at G.V. Mall. Vinayak Singh had been sitting
f
there. He spoke to her and said that he had to say something to

her for five minutes. Thereafter she, on her own, went to the

parking area. Vinayak Singh came in his car, got down, spoke to

her and then his friend sitting on the front seat pointed pistol g

close to her belly and asked her to sit in the car. According to

her, she was forcibly made to sit in the car. She said that the

car was locked so her cries could not be heard from outside. h
Thereafter she was taken to the place of occurrence. She has

alleged that only Vinayak Singh raped her. Sandeep Kumar threatened

08-09-2022 PSL Chambers (Downloaded from www.manupatra.com)

MANU/SCOR/42755/2021 Source : http://www.judis.nic.in/

and frightened her. The last line reads, “Therefore, you are most
a
humbly requested to take legal action against Vinayak Singh,

Sandeep Mukhiya, Vikas and Kush. I identify all of them by their

faces.”

Kush, as observed above, had allegedly rented premises where b

the incident took place. There is nothing against the appellant

herein. On the other hand, the appellant is a married man. His

wife has made a representation alleging that he has wrongly been c

implicated. The appellant never had any occasion to even talk to

the victim. The mobile phone would reveal that he was nowhere near

place of occurrence. It is not even alleged that he was anywhere

d
near the place of occurrence. It is contended that the CCTV camera

footage installed at the Mall would show that the victim had not

been forced into the car. No pistol has been recovered. The
e
appellant had only pushed the car along with guard of the Mall

because of some mechanical problem, quite unaware of any force on

any one to get into the car.

f
The appellant has been languishing in custody since

08.01.2020. The trial is likely to take time.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment

g
and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant

shall be granted bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed

by the concerned Sessions Court.

h

08-09-2022 PSL Chambers (Downloaded from www.manupatra.com)

MANU/SCOR/42755/2021 Source : http://www.judis.nic.in/

a
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

………………………………………………………,J.
(Indira Banerjee)
b

………………………………………………………,J.
(J.K. Maheshwari)
New Delhi;
November 23, 2021.
c

08-09-2022 PSL Chambers (Downloaded from www.manupatra.com)

MANU/SCOR/42755/2021 Source : http://www.judis.nic.in/

TM
This is a True Court Copy of the order as appearing on the Court website.
Publisher has only added the page para for convenience in referencing.

08-09-2022 PSL Chambers (Downloaded from www.manupatra.com)