AJAY YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Hari Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Nehal Beg, learned counsel for the informant/victim.

(2.) This anticipatory bail application (under sec. 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.49 of 2019, under Ss. 376, 313, 504, 506 IPC and Sec. 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per allegation, the applicant has committed rape upon the victim in the year 2011. He further submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2011 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 11/3/2019 i.e. about 8 years of the alleged incident but there is no plausible explanation regarding huge delay. He further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that applicant has made physical relation with her. The victim herself has admitted that she has made physical relation with the applicant meaning thereby the victim is a consenting party. He further submits that the victim was medically examined on 28/3/2019 in which the victim was found above 18 years and as per supplementary medical report, no spermatozoa was seen. He further submits that in the alleged incident, the applicant and his father has been implicated on false and fabricated ground. The coaccused Dayalu Yadav has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dtd. 11/4/2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.13001 of 2022, copy of the same has been filed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit.. Prime facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.