Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49116 of 2018 Applicant :- Janmejay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Janmejay Singh, in Case Crime No.107 of 2017, under Sections 376, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya Prakash Singh holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the FIR where there is an allegation of rape by the prosecutrix against the applicant after gaining proximity on the pretext of securing a job and marrying her, but he lateron refused to marry the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has indicated that the applicant and the prosecutrix were into a relationship continuing over time, since the year 2013, and the two were very intimate. The said statement does not speak anything about rape. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is said that the applicant gained confidence of the prosecutrix and came close to her, while a case for divorce between her and her husband was in progress at that time. He promised to secure a job for the prosecutrix and became physically intimate. It is said that when the prosecutrix objected, he promised to marry her. It is also said that when the applicant's father fell ill, she lent him a sum of Rs.1 lac. It is also said that on occasion he spoke to her parents about marriage, but lateron, refused to marry her. Learned counsel has also referred to the statement of the prosecutrix made to the doctor in confidence, where it is categorically said that the two were staying in a live-in- relationship for the past three years. It is said that marriage between them was settled, and in contemplation of marriage, there were physical relations. It is mentioned that since the applicant quietly settled his marriage elsewhere, she has been deceived. There is no other allegation of rape in the said statement, according to the learned counsel for the applicant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is a matured woman of thirty years and stayed in a live-in-relationship with the applicant where the parties contemplated marriage, trying to work out their relationship. It is said that the relationship did not work out. It is not that the applicant had an intention to cheat at the inception, so as to gain sexual intimacy. There is no such deception practised by the applicant, which may invite an offence of rape. Mere failure of a relationship or of breach of promise to marry, without any intention to cheat, does not constitute rape, in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned AGA have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is a woman of matured years, the applicant and the prosecutrix from the different accounts of the prosecutrix during investigation were into a relationship in contemplation of marriage, which did not ultimately work out, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Janmejay Singh, in Case Crime No.107 of 2017, under Sections 376, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 NSC