Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39303 of 2021 Applicant :- Deepu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Chandra, Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Amar Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned State counsel and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Deepu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 96 of 2021, under Sections 376D, 452, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Mirzapur, District Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although in the F.I.R. there is allegation that the applicant Deepu, co-accused Shahnu and Neelu committed rape upon the wife of the first informant but the same is false and incorrect. It is argued that the prosecutrix has although stated of rape being committed upon her by all three said accused persons including the applicant but there are variations in the statements specifically with regard to her taking away to the place of occurrence. It is argued that the medical examination report of the prosecutrix does not support the prosecution case. The prosecutrix is a married major lady.
Learned counsel has argued while placing para- 18 of the affidavit in support of bail application, that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there was a land in front of the house of the first informant which was purchased by Sukhpal the father of the applicant and the uncle of co- accused Neelu on 4.12.2019 through a sale deed. The informant was interested in purchasing the said land and has asked the father of the applicant not to purchase it, but he had purchased the land and as such he became annoyed and implicated the applicant in the present case. It is argued that the implication of the applicant is with malafide intentions. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-11 of the affidavit and is in jail since 04.4.2021.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix and there is allegation of rape by the applicant and two other accused persons. It is argued that the present case is a case of gang rape. It is further argued that the place of occurrence is specific without any change in the prosecution case. There is no discrepancy in the same. It is argued that the prosecutrix has stated of rape being committed upon her by the applicant and two other accused persons and the reason for false implication of the applicant in any manner does not inspire confidence.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present case is a case of gang rape. The applicant is named in the F.I.R., in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix. There is no reason for false implication of the applicant.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.12.2021 Naresh