Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36315 of 2020 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Mohan Tripathi,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Dubey,Vipul Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Bail Application (under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2020 under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ajeem Nagar, District Rampur.
As per F.I.R. lodged by father of the victim, his daughter aged about 17 years had gone to bring straw from the field, there, accused applicant had taken her away on the pistol point and committed rape upon her. She did not reveal anything because of fear of applicant and started staying calm and when her father asked her repeatedly, she started crying and revealed about the occurrence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; F.I.R. was lodged after considerable delay i.e. on 13.01.2020 while occurrence had taken place on 24.12.2019. He has drawn attention of the Court towards the medical examination report of the victim in which she has been found fully conscious and it is also pointed out that no external injury was found by the doctor on her person; in the column of hymen, endorsement has been made that hymen was absent and was old and healed tags was found; he has further stated that smear was taken for preparing the slides for being tested and dates were fixed/ or the same; he has also drawn attention of the Court towards the radio-logical age of the victim regarding which medical report of C.M.O. is annexed in which her age is found to be 19 years although victim has claimed herself to be 16 years. In Supplementary-Report, no spermatozoa was found; he has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has emphasized that she did not cry despite the fact that cloth which was said to have been inserted in her mouth had been taken out which shows that there was good relationship between accused and the victim; it is also stated that cheap video was also taken/made by the accused which is an improvement. Then he has drawn attention towards case-diary in which it is mentioned by I.O. that soon after the occurrence, the applicant had gone out and was not found in his home, in order to earn his livelihood and, thereafter he had also gone to the house of informant where it was told that the victim had studied up class 5; he has also drawn attention of the Court towards the next para of case-diary which is annexed at page nos. 12-13 in which date of birth of the victim is found recorded as 6.06.2020 as per transfer certificate; he has also drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of Tarun Mohan, in-charge of the school wherein he is found to have verified age of the victim. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of accused, copy of which is annexed at page nos. 15-16 in which he has stated that he had gone to Hyderabad and did work of shuttering and had come to attend a marriage of his cousin brother, Mohan Lal and had a talk with victim on date 28 but had not taken snap of her and his mobile had been also lost. Having drawn attention of the Court towards these pieces of evidence, it is argued that there are plenty of discrepancies found in the evidences on record i.e. statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. besides that, it is also pointed out that there appears to be good relationship between victim and the accused. It is further argued that in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim has not made allegation of rape against the applicant; if the accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and has drawn attention of the Court towards the fact that internal medical examination report looses its importance because the same was made on the basis of examination conducted after 20 days and it is argued that in victim's statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that rape was committed upon her, therefore, bail should be rejected.
In view of the above, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant, Rahul on bail.
The bail application of the applicant Rahul, is, accordingly, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a downloaded copy of this order from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021/A. Mandhani