Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19279 of 2021 Applicant :- Rahul And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Shankar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ganesh Shankar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Rahul and Gulab Chandra, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 416 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the present First Information Report is a counterblast to a First Information Report lodged by Ram Sawari under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-Ka IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Soraon, Disrict Prayagraj against Deepak, Deepu, Maksudan @ Makhanchu and Shyam the son-in-law of the Maksudan. It is argued that Shyam who is an accused in the said First Information Report, is the husband of the first informant of the present case and as such the present case is a counterblast just in order to falsely implicate the applicants but no such incident whatsoever took place. The victim/first informant denied to get her medical examination done when she was produced before the doctor. There are variations in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of the first informant. The prosecution case is not consistent. The applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicants are named in the First Information Report and the present case is a case of gang rape.
After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, looking to the facts of the case, nature of acquisition and the implication of the applicants, I do not find a fit case for interference.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 / M.
ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)