Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2883 of 2018
Revisionist :- Smt. Rashida
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamla Kant Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Sri Chandrajeet Yadav, Advocate has filed appearance slip on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandrajeet Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 07.08.2018, by which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case is wholly false and it can never be assumed that the applicant who is the wife of the main accused would involve in the crime of rape in her presence.
At present, it appears that the victim has made specific allegation against the applicant of having called her on pretext of some work and having administered her an intoxicant substance which rendered her unconscious where after the commission of rape has been alleged, in all detail.
In view of the above, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. All pleas will remain open to the applicant to be seek appropriate remedies at appropriate stage after she participates in the trial proceeding.
All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 30.8.2018/Lbm/-