Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25948 of 2021 Applicant :- Gaurav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh,Jitendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
Vide order dated 28.07.2021, notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2. As per the office report dated 13.09.2021, a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 01.09.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party No. 2.
No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 even when the matter is taken in the revised list.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Gaurav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 360 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 342, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Pooranpur, District Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is named in the first information report along with co-accused Bansi and Ramdev and there is an allegation against the applicant and co-accused Bansi of committing rape upon the prosecutrix, who is stated to be about 16 years old and further co- accused Ramdev is said to be standing there at guard but the allegations are false and incorrect. It is argued that there was some dispute with regards to children between the co-accused Ramdev and the first informant and due to the said enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated. Paragraph 18 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further argued that the victim used to come regularly to the house of the applicant and there was some affinity between them and she wanted to marry the applicant as she was having a love affair with him but she has deposed on the pressure of family members and has falsely implicated the applicant. It is argued that medical examination does not support the prosecution case and as per the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer concerned, the age of the prosecutrix has been opined to be 17-18 years. It is argued that as such, the implication of the applicant in the present case is false and is with malafide intentions.
Per contra, learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the first information report, there is an allegation that the applicant and co-accused Bansi committed rape upon the prosecutrix. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, even therein there is an allegation that the applicant and co-accused committed rape upon her after kidnapping her from outside her house when she was going to attend call of nature. It is argued that the prosecutrix was in the house of the applicant and was shouting therein after which her mother, who was searching her, was crossing the house and then she went to the said place and she discovered that her daughter is lying in semi-naked condition. It is argued that as such, the applicant is named in the first information report, statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there is an allegation of rape by the applicant and co- accused Bansi. The present case, is a case of gang rape. It is further argued that as per the school records, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15.04.2004 and as such, she was aged about 16 years at the time of incident and was a minor.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the present case, is a case of gang rape and the applicant and co- accused Bansi are stated to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix. She is a minor aged about 16 years. She has also stated about the factum of rape being committed upon her by the said two accused persons.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)