Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28383 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey,Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Diwan Saifullah Khan
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Daya Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Rajendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 545 of 2021, under Sections 354, 376, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the first informant/prosecutrix. The husband of the prosecutrix had died around 11 years back and she has two children from the wedlock. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is with regards to property. It is further argued that the mother-in-law of the first informant had moved an application before the District Magistrate on 13.8.2019 stating therein in specific terms that the first informant is blackmailing her and her family and due to the same she is being paid Rs.25,000/- per month just to save the respect of the family. It is argued that on 16.4.2021 the applicant had executed a gift deed in favour of his wife of property in question and on coming to know of the same, on very next day i.e. 17.4.2021 the present F.I.R. has been lodged. It is further argued that the first informant has initiated a case under Domestic Violence Act and there is also a suit pending between the parties with regards to the property in question. It is argued that as such the allegations in the F.I.R. are totally false and incorrect and with malafide intentions.
It is argued that the dispute arose recently and then she has levelled allegations against the applicant of committing rape upon her since last two months. It is argued that no such incident has taken place and the allegations are totally false and concocted. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 16 and is in jail since 28.4.2021.
Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. He has committed rape upon the first informant/prosecutrix who is his daughter-in-law. It is argued that there is specific allegations against him in the F.I.R., in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix. It is argued that even the act of rape was captured by the first informant in a video, of which there are some still photographs taken and got printed which are annexure no. C.A.- 2 to the counter affidavit. It is further argued that the entire incident of rape was captured and is a part of case diary and is a part of investigation which is a noting of the Investigating Officer in the case diary. The extract of which is annexure no. C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit. It is argued that there are allegations against the applicant. It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There is a video clipping of the act of rape which is a part of the case diary and part of investigation.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Naresh