Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9754 of 2021 Applicant :- Chandrashekhar Singh @ Shekhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Mishra,Rajiv Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the applicant,Chandrashekhar Singh @ Shekhar, in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station - Meerganj, District - Jaunpur.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through video conferencing.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the father of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that the First Information Report has been lodged after the prosecutrix returned home, but there is material discrepancy between the contents of the F.I.R. and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that on the date of the incident, the applicant was not at all about the place where the victim was abducted. The applicant has also brought on record his reservation tickets, showing that on the date of the incident, he had travelled from Delhi to Haridwar and stayed there from 13.01.2021 to 14.01.2021. It is urged that the applicant was working as a Sales Executive in a finance company, but was removed from his job due to the nationwide lock-down. He has disowned his connection with the co-accused Raj Singh or the prosecutrix. It is said that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and it is not a case where he ought to be arrested, or one that requires custodial interrogation.
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and pointed out that the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that he has read out from the Case Diary, has come up with an allegation of gang rape, inculpating the applicant along with the other co-accused. It is stated that on the basis of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 376-D IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act have been added to the crime, wherein the applicant has not even applied for bail by means of the present anticipatory bail application.
The Court has considered the rival submissions. Considering the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix clearly inculpates the applicant in a case of gang rape, and the further fact that the prosecutrix is below 18 years, on account of which, an offence under the POCSO Act has also been charged, this Court does not find this case to be fit for the grant of anticipatory bail.
In the result, this application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 25.5.2021 I. Batabyal