SHYAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Bahadur, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

(2.) By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.797 of 2019, under Sections 366, 376, I.P.C., Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the incident which is dated 01.10.2019 and the FIR was lodged belatedly on 24.12.2019, after about two months and 20 days of the alleged incident by the father of the victim without any plausible explanation of delay. The applicant was named merely on the ground of suspicion as the daughter of the informant was doing job upon the shop of the applicant named as 'Girraj Mobile Repairing Center' and as she told in her house that she is going to mobile shop for her duty on the date of incident. He further submitted that the victim is a qualified lady and she is major aged about 20 years and was working in S. D. Inter Collage, Ailly, as a teacher since 2018. In the statement of the witnesses namely Vijay Singh and Hakim Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they stated that they received a letter from victim in which she has mentioned that she got married with one Manish Chauhan. The other witness namely Divya in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also stated that the victim was not well treated by her parents. It is also submitted that the victim lodged a complaint case no.132 of 2020 (Pratiksha Vs. Majbot Singh and others) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj on 08.06.2020, under Sections 504 and 506 IPC against her father and others (but not against the applicant), which is pending before the court concerned, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no.5 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application, in which she has stated that the report against the applicant was incorrect and she of her own voluntarily eloped from her parental house. The another witness namely Kumari Ruchi in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which has been annexed as annexure no.6 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application, stated that the victim was in love affair. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that medical examination report of the victim does not support the prosecution case, as there is no evidence on record to support the allegation of rape and there is no evidence of any external or internal injuries on the body of the victim. He further submitted that the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim is tutored and is an improvement under the pressure. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that as per the statements recorded by the investigation officers, at the most, it transpires that this is a case of love affair between the applicant and the victim girl and the girl was consenting party. The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 08.07.2020. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial and will not pressurize or intimidate the witnesses. He further submitted that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions which this Hon'ble Court may impose while granting bail to the applicant.