Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14877 of 2018 Applicant :- Sagir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.700 of 2017, u/ss 363, 366, 376 and 428 IPC, Police Station- Atrouli, District- Aligarh.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim- girl was major and the fact that has been disclosed in the FIR that she had taken away cash and jewellery along with her is the strong indicative that she was a willing and consenting party in the process of eloping with the applicant. Further submission is that actually a writ petition was filed in the court on behalf of the victim Smt. Chandani Khan alias Nita Gupta. It was brought to the notice of the Court that when she was going to attend the court's proceedings, certain persons forcibly kidnapped her and the FIR was lodged in the police station George-Town in that regard. The Court made certain directions calling for a report and made efforts to recover the kidnapped girl. Submission is that actually the applicant fell in love with the victim and they had decided to marry also but because of the disagreement of the parental side of the victim, this false implication has been made and, therefore, case for bail is made out.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that when the victim-girl was produced before the court of the Magistrate, she made statement that as she was known to the applicant from before, he made bad use of the acquaintance and was put under threat that in case she would disclose anything to her parents, they would be shot. At some point of time, she was kidnapped after placing handkerchief on her mouth which turned her unconscious and when she recovered her consciousness after one and a half hours she found herself with the applicant and a lawyer. Certain drugs were also administered to her which again resulted in her semi consciousness. When she was being carried in such a condition to the court telling her that she has to marry with the applicant, she somehow managed to extricate herself out and run away. Thereafter, somehow or the other she reached her parental's house. In fact, it was also stated by the victim in her statement that the applicant committed wrong acts with her which indicated commission of rape. It was again stated by the victim before the Magistrate that she was put under threat that in case she will not live with the applicant, her brother would be shot dead by him. The victim expressed her desire to go along with her parents. The attention of the Court was drawn to the order dated 22.9.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18547 of 2017, Smt. Chandani Khan alias Neetu Gupta and another in which it has been observed that the victim-girl was produced before the aforesaid Bench in compliance of the order passed on 18.9.2017 in police custody by the S.S.P., Aligarh. A copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also produced in the court indicating her support to the prosecution story. The Court took note of the alleged fact that she was forcibly kidnapped by petitioner no.2 of that writ petition, that is to say, the applicant from the guardianship of her father. The Court had made observations that as the victim had herself supported the prosecution case and the First Information Report discloses commission of cognizable offence, it was not found fit to interfere in the investigation. In fact, the court made observation in the order that the victim-girl had stated that she wanted to go back to her parents and, therefore, in that view of the matter, the Court had directed the S.S.P. concerned to crop her back under custody to her parents' house. Submission is that the victim has also been subjected to forcible conversion as her changed name would indicate and overall facts and circumstances of the case are such which do not call for any liberal view in the matter.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 23.4.2018 CPP/-