RAHUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar 'Kesari', learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Rahul Singh in Case Crime No.162 of 2015, under Sections 342, 368 and 376 I.P.C. and 3 (1)(12) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kapsethi, District-Varanasi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that admittedly the prosecutrix is aged about 30 years and a married woman. Though in fact she had travelled with the applicant to Mumbai and stayed with him for about one month, however, subsequently she has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that the applicant had taken her to Mumbai on the pretext of procuring her a job and she was subjected to sexual assault. The F.I.R. was lodged on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after more than four months of the alleged incident. After thorough investigation, final report was submitted by the police, on which protest petition was filed by the prosecutrix and the applicant has been summoned to face trial by the Magistrate while rejecting final report. It is next contended that there is no medical report and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 03.05.2018, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that there are allegations of rape against the applicant from very inception and the victim belongs to a poor strata of the society and she was taken to Mumbai by the applicant on the pretext of getting her a job. He has further submitted that the victim has levelled allegation that the applicant had made an attempt to throw her in flesh trade. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Let applicant-Rahul Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-