Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the the applicant is a married lady and as per her own statement she is aged about 27 years. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he, for the first time, committed rape on the prosecutrix on 16.1.2001 and thereafter he quite often had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, as a result of which, she became pregnant number of times. He further submits that there was inordinate delay of about 3 1/2 years in lodging the F.I.R. and there is no plausible explanation for the same. He further submits that, as per medical report, no injury, either external or on the private parts of the prosecutrix, was found. He further submits that, as per the F.I.R. version as well as the statements of the prosecutrix, the applicant went on committing rape on the prosecutrix frequently for so many years but it is very strange to note that she never disclosed the said fact even to her husband and close relatives and this conduct on the part of the prosecutrix itself goes to show that she was a consenting party. In support of his contention he referred to Annexure no. 6, which is a copy of the conclusion drawn by the police during investigation, to indicate that during investigation the police found that the prosecutrix is a lady of bad character and firstly she allures and snares the innocent persons for the purpose of extracting money from them and later on she launches prosecution against them with a view to harass and put a pressure to extract illegal money, and since no crediable evidence was found by the police agaisnt the applicant making out a case under sections 376,452 and 506 I.P.C., the police submitted charge sheet against the applicant under section 509 I.P.C. only and the applicant was released on bail by the court below under the said section . Thereafter the prosecution moved an application before the C.J.M, Agra for summoning the accused applicant under section 376 I.P.C. and that application was dismissed by the court below. After dismissal of the said application the prosecutrix filed a revision before the Sessions Court which too was dismissed. However, during trial on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix the Special C.J.M., Agra by his order dated 1.11.2008 summoned the applicant under sections 366,376 and 506 I.P.C. which was challenged by the applicant before this court by means of an application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by this court on 29.3.2010 with a direction to the court below to hear and decide the bail application of the applicant within 30 days from the date of the said order and in pursuant to the said order of this court bail application of the applicant was heard and decided by the court below by rejecting the same on 16.4.2010. He further submits that, in fact , no rape as alleged by the prosecution was ever committed by the applicant and has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that, as per version of the F.I.R. itself, it appears that the husband of the prosecutrix had borrowed some money from the applicant but he could not return the same and when the applicant insisted for return of his money some heated exchange of words took place between them and as a result thereof, the present prosecution has been launched against the applicant malafide with a view to harass and pressurise him. He further submits that the applicant has got no criminal history to his credit and there is no chance of his fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and is in jail since 16.4.2010.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the bail application.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Manoj Kumar Khare involved in Case Crime No.51 of 2004 under Sections 376,506,366 I.P.C., P.S. Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District Agra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
(iv)The applicant shall report to the police station concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behavior.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions , the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 MLK