Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Rape Accused

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

On the 18th of August, 2020 the High Court of Allahabad had granted anticipatory bail to Pratap (accused applicant) who had been arrested for committing kidnap and rape of a woman, among other crimes.

Background of the Case

The prosecutrix (the female victim) had come to her parent’s home where Mukesh (co-accused) was her neighbour. On the 6th of September, 2019 at about 1:30 pm she had gone out to buy some articles along with Daichi (wife of Mukesh). In the due process, she was kidnapped by Mukesh and was administered with stupefying drugs which knocked her out. Thereafter she was taken to a house near the Railway line where she was kept for a few days. Mukesh and one other person namely, Jija Pratap (accused) had raped her and Daichi had beaten and threatened her. One day, by accident she took hold of a telephone from a child who had disclosed the name of the village, Alam. She’d telephoned her mother, immediately. Nevertheless, she was soon shifted to the matrimonial home of Daichi where Babban (brother of Mukesh) had forcibly raped her when she refused to marry him. Meanwhile, Police had come in search of the prosecutrix – said a phone call from Mukesh’s sister who resides in the village of Alam. On 23rd of September, 2019 at around 1 pm, she was again drugged by Pratap and was taken to Farrukhabad by Mukesh and Pratap. And, thereafter somebody had telephoned her brother and then was taken home. Following the same, her family had filed an FIR. 

Pratap (accused) had applied for an anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 314 of 2020 under Sections 328, 342, 323, 504, 506, 376D, 120B of IPC, Police Station (PS) of Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the investigation.

Submissions at the Court

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the victim has falsely implicated Pratap (accused applicant) because of there being some dispute with Mukesh who was a neighbour of the prosecutrix in her matrimonial home. It is also mentioned that she had refused to get herself medically examined and which is evident from the evidence adduced.

Additionally, Pratap has had no criminal history. Adding on, the reason of false implication was because the prosecutrix had some dispute with co-accused, Mukesh on account of money pertaining to the supply of milk and that the family members of the prosecutrix had earlier filed an FIR being Crime No. 1634 of 2010 under Section 354 IPC, PS of Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad which was later on compromised by them after taking illegal money. It is further argued that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about five months as the occurrence is stated to have been taken place on 6th September 2019 while the FIR had been filed only on the 3rd of February, 2020. Hence, he has an apprehension of imminent arrest. The counsel for the applicant had also put forth that if he were to be released on bail he would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.

However, the learned AGA for the state had vehemently opposed the prayer for granting bail for Pratap because, in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution version to which learned counsel for the applicant has controverted and has stated that the prosecutrix has stated in FIR that Mukesh and Babban had committed rape upon her in the village, Alam meanwhile in her statement under the same section, has stated that all the three accused i.e. Mukesh, Pratap, and Babban had committed rape upon her in the village, Purthi, therefore, there is variation in the place of occurrence also in statements under the aforementioned Section.

Judgement

Given the above submissions, the bench of learned Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh-I had said that taking into consideration the gravity of the accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case till the submission of police if any u/s 173 (2) of CRPC, before the competent court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions,

  • The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 
  • The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
  • The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has a passport the same shall be deposited by him before the SSP/SP concerned.

The Court had also directed that the Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within three months.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -