MO. IRFAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Mohd. Irfan, in Case Crime No. 53 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376(1), 385 IPC, and Section 67 (a) I.T. Act, Police Station Garwar, District Ballia.

(2.) Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.N. Rai, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA along with Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is argued that he is nominated in the FIR with an allegation of rape and extortionist demand on pain of circulating an obscene video of the prosecutrix, an account which is consistent in the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The case of the applicant is that the applicant and the prosecutrix were into a relationship over a long period of time, and later on, also married in accordance with the Muslim rites on 19.06.2017 near the Bishnipur Mosque, Ballia. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to a copy of the Nikahnama signed by both parties, and according to him, by a host of other persons involved in the solemnization of marriage. It is said that later on, the prosecutrix has denied this marriage as the relationship between parties soured and has come up with an allegation of rape, together with capturing an obscene video clip and making it viral on a whatsapp group. In order to show that these allegations are incorrect, learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded at the trial as PW-2, where she has said in her dock evidence that she had no personal knowledge of the fact that she was ravished, but came to know of it from the applicant and nobody else. She has further said that so far as the issue of the embarrassing video clip being made viral is concerned, she heard of it from some natives of the village, about which learned Senior Counsel says that it is, therefore, hearsay. She has further stated in her deposition that she did not know that she was administered some deleterious substance in her cold drink. She has, however, denied the factum of marriage or of divorce with the applicant. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has said that the applicant coveted her for a while when she was there to attend some classes. Later on, the two became friends. Still later, she fell in love with the applicant. It is said by the prosecutrix that though she was in love with the applicant, but he was not ready to marry her. Learned Senior Counsel has harped on the said statement much to say that it is clear from the aforesaid statement that the parties were into a relationship and even if they did not marry, the same does not detract from the fact that the two were into an intimate relationship. He further submits that the parties did marry and became man and wife, which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant.