Ref:- Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 287595 of 2016.
Counter affidavit on behalf of the State filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
Submission of the counsel for the appellant is that according to the medical examination, the age of the victim was found of about 17 years at the time of incident. Further submission is that actually she was much above of that age and was fully grown up mature girl. Next submission is that it was admitted by the victim during the course of her statement that she was enticed away by the appellant and was then taken to his house where the applicant's mother, father and brother were all present and she was seen by all the members of appellant's family. She was kept in the parental house of the appellant for a few days and then she was taken to Ahmedabad, Gujarat, hundreds of kilometres away where she lived in a rented room for about two and half months and during this course, sexual relationship were established by the appellant. Submission is that though the allegation of committing rape has been made against the appellant but overall tenor of the statement reveals that it was a case of love affair and it is difficult to accept the proposition that the victim would go along with the appellant and was travelling to far off places, yet she would not get any opportunity to complain or to resist or to protest. It has also been submitted that if this was not a case of consent then there was no question for the appellant to have taken the victim to his parental house or to have kept the victim there in full knowledge of the family members. Further submission is that even the F.I.R. of this case was lodged after one month of the incident which is also a pointer to the effect that the fact of willing elopement was very well known to the family members of the victim. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the internal page-16 of the judgement in which the statement of D.W.-2, Gaya Prasad Dubey, Advocate, has been discussed, who has deposed to the effect that the victim was badly antagonised and indignited against her mother and she also lodged a complaint case against her mother. Contention is that actually because of the disgruntled life which the victim was leading in her family, she drifted towards the appellant and both decided to marry with each other. It was also submitted that it is undisputed that at least the victim had reached at the age of discretion. It was also pointed out that actually during the course of her stay with the appellant, the High Court was also approached and the victim along with the appellant had appeared before the High Court and it was stated in the Court that she was with the appellant on her own sweet will and living with him without any coercion. Counsel has shown to the Court the order of Division Bench dated 15.7.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14124 of 2013 which confirms the presence of the victim and the appellant along with the counsel in the Court and their admission of having married wilfully with each other without any coercion or compulsion. Counsel has been fair enough to concede that this order was not brought on record during the course of trial and attention of the trial court was never drawn to the aforesaid order. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.8.2013 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early hearing of appeal. Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early hearing and conclusion of appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the appellant- Sudeep Singh Chauhan, convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 29 of 2013, State vs. Sudeep Singh Chauhan, arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2013, u/s 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Khaga, District- Fatehpur, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
Order Date :- 18.11.2016 Naresh Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Bail of the appellant was heard and granted, office is required to list this case for hearing in due course after preparation of paper book.
Order Date :- 18.11.2016 Naresh