Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6363 of 2021 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been given by the applicant Rahul in Case No.1010 of 2020 arising out Case Crime No.337 of 2019 under sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354- A, 376 IPC, P.S. Devband, District Saharanpur pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devband, Saharanpur.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that there are contradiction in the statements of victim. Initially the F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 354A IPC, but subsequently the victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. which is an afterthought, has made allegation with regard to commission of rape on her by the applicant, on the basis of which offence under section 376 IPC has been added. It has been submitted that the victim is a grown up lady and mother of a 8 years old child. There was some quarrel with regard to taking water and for that reason applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no question of applicant fleeing away from the process of the court and therefore there is a prima facie case for anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and has submitted that after investigation charge sheet has been filed. The improvement of section 376 IPC has been done on the basis of statement given by the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that after filing of charge sheet recourse open to the applicant to go for regular bail in this case.
It appears that charge sheet has already been filed for aforesaid offences including offence of rape. When charge sheet has been filed, it was for the applicant to go for regular bail but instead of regular bail he has given application for anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, exceptional circumstances have to be shown and it has also to be shown that there is threat of arrest of the accused. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 09.04.2019 and since then applicant has not yet been arrested which shows that there is no threat of arrest of the accused.
No extraordinary circumstances justifying anticipatory bail has been shown, hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Tamang