Judgement Reserved on 21.11.2019 Judgement Delivered on 28.11.2019
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23680 of 2019 Applicant :- Brijesh Sahni Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Patanjali Mishra and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A. G. A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.332 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506, IPC, and Section 13/14 & 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur.
I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant has been rejected.
Contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of the previous enmity; that much reliance has been placed on the earlier FIR and the NCR, which have been lodged from the side of the applicant, copy of which have been annexed on page nos.59 and 69 of the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application, which have been duly perused by the Court; that the victim girl as per the medical about 18 years of age and she was in consensual relationship with the present applicant. The further contention is that the applicant is in jail.
Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Patanjali Mishra and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A. G. A. appearing for the State have strongly opposed the prayer for bail, with the contention that merely because the girl was in a consensual relationship with one of the accused, does not entitled the accused to get the girl gang rape by his friends; that much reliance has been placed on the statements of the girl recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which are quite explicit; that in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement she categorically stated that "ममैडम, यह ममेररी हरी वरीडडययो हमै क्ययोंडकि सहरी वरीडडययो उस अजज्ञात किमरमे मम घटनज्ञा किमे डदिन बबृजमेश दज्ञारज्ञा डदिखज्ञायज्ञा गयज्ञा थज्ञा एववं वज्ञायरल किरनमे किकी धमकिकी दिरी गयरी थरी। " The further contention is that with regard to delay in lodging of the impugned FIR it has been contended that the FIR was lodged as soon as the said video was made viral and in fact the video was send to the mobile phone of the brother of the victim and it was only when the family members of the victim came to know about the alleged incident and thereafter, they initiated steps for lodging of the impugned FIR; that much reliance has also been placed on the statements of the Sailesh Yadav, the complainant and Sailendra, the witness, copy of which has been annexed on page no.45 of the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application and both the statements are quite explicit; that the reasons for delay in lodging the FIR is that as the girl was in apprehension regarding publicity of video; that further contention is that even if it is presumed that there are consensual sexual relationship between the victim girl and the applicant, but even then the allegations remains that she was sexually exploited on the basis of said video; that it is also informed that in the matter the police after completing the investigation has filed the charge sheet, on the basis of evidence collected by the police, against the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Sri Patanjali Mishra and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State has informed the Court there does exists a pen drive. The said pen drive is available with the office of Government Advocate, as provided by the investigating officer, however the same has not been perused by the Court, as the same is the subject matter of trial.
Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court no case for grant of any indulgence in the present bail is made out.
Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 VKG