Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33020 of 2021 Applicant :- Vaseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel 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-Vaseem, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.73 of 2021, under Sections 452, 376, 392, 506 and 411 IPC, registered at Police Station Gunnaur, District Smbhal.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecutrix is a widow lady aged about 35 years. She is a consenting party to the act in question. It is argued while placing para 14 of the affidavit that it was when the ten year old son of the prosecutrix saw her with the applicant, who complained of it to his maternal uncle (mama) who then lodged the present FIR by falsely implicating the applicant. The recovery of the alleged articles is a planted recovery and there is no corroboration of the same to have been looted article. The present case is a case of false implication of the applicant. The applicant has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated with malafide intentions. It is further argued that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 13 days by the brother of the prosecutrix. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.02.2021.
Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR, in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and there is an allegation of his committing rape upon the victim. Kamal, ten year old son of the prosecutrix is an eye-witness to the act of rape being committed upon his mother who has given a detailed description as to how rape was committed on his mother. There is no reason for false implication and statement of Kamal is a natural statement and even his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be disputed as he is the son of the prosecutrix, as such the present bail application be rejected.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the FIR, in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Even Kamal, the ten year old son of the prosecutrix has given an eye-witness account of the factum of rape upon his mother. There is recovery of the ornaments which the applicant is said to have taken away after committing rape.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Gaurav