GURUVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the side opposite and perused the record. Present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.6 of 2021, under Ss. - 354Ka, 354Kha, 354Ga and 354Gha, 376, 509, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Lalganj, District-Pratapgarh. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the FIR, the informant/victim is posted as Naib Tehsildar at District Pratapgarh. The FIR in issue was lodged on 2/1/2021 at about 07:26 hours. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant committed crime i.e. rape with the informant/victim for the first time in the year 2012 in the premises situated at GTB Nagar, New Delhi. It is further stated that in the FIR that the applicant also has made obscene video clips of informant/victim. He further stated that it appears from the FIR that on the basis of obscene video clips and photographs, the applicant continued to commit crime with the informant/victim. It is also apparent from the FIR that in 2017, the informant/victim was appointed as Naib Tehsildar at district Pratapgarh. It further transpires therefrom that in Pratapgarh also, the applicant committed crime with informant/victim and took obscene photographs. In the FIR, further allegations have been levelled, which are to the effect that account of informant/victim was operated by the applicant. The informant/victim was also threatened on phone and messages, as indicated in the FIR. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that in nutshell, the contents of FIR are to the effect that since 2012-2013 to the date of lodging of FIR, the applicant continued to commit crime i.e. rape with informant/victim on the basis of obscene video clips and photographs made by him.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the story, as alleged by prosecution, is improbable, as the informant/victim was major in the year 2012 and she never raised any alarm or objected or inform the concerned till lodging of FIR. Even after her joining as Naib Tehsildar at District Pratapgarh, the informant/victim never opposed the action of applicant or lodged the FIR. This FIR in issue has been lodged just to harass the applicant who was/is in love with the informant/victim. In fact this is a case of consent. The applicant met with informant/victim in the year 2012 in a coaching institute, as both were appearing in competitive examinations. The applicant and informant/victim were having affair and physical relations were established with the consent of informant/victim. The relationship continued till 2020. In 2020, on account of some dispute, the relationship was broken. On a query being put at this stage, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the marriage of informant/victim was settled by her parent, as such, she refused to continue the relationship with the applicant and it appears that for this reason as also that the victim became Naib Tehsildar and the applicant could not crack any examination, the victim broken the relations with the applicant and lodged the FIR, however, the applicant is still ready to solemnize marriage with informant/victim. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that after lodging the FIR in issue, the applicant was apprehended and taken into custody. The concerned police authority recovered one hard disk and six mobile phones, out of which, only two mobile phones were in use at that point of time. Initially the FIR was lodged against the applicant and unknown persons. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted the charge-sheet only against the applicant. This charge-sheet was filed by Crime Branch, as the investigation was transferred to Crime Branch on an application of informant/victim. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement(s) of person concerned particularly the friend of victim/informant namely Ms. Jyoti Pathak. Her statement was recorded after considering the statement of informant/victim, according to which, for the first time the crime was committed by applicant in the room/premises of Jyoti Pathak. This witness has not supported the story of prosecution. As per the statement of this witness, the applicant and informant/victim were having live in relationship.

(3.) Elaborating aforesaid aspect, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the statement of informant/victim, the victim went to room/premises of Jyoti Pathak when she was sick and ther in the same situation, the applicant committed crime, however, the witness Jyoti Pathak has stated that informant/victim never came to my room/place/premises in such a condition and neither stayed at my room for 6-7 days. Further, as per the statement of Jyoti Pathak, neither rape was committed with victim at her room nor the applicant went there.