Dismissed

akhilesh @ pintu thakur v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2021BAIL/52061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the court examined allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC. The applicant contended the FIR was false due to contradictions in the victim's statements. Despite the court noting these contradictions, it opined that the charges were serious cases where bail was not a matter of right. The application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; the accused was ordered to remain in judicial custody.

akhilesh @ pintu thakur Vs State of U.P. through Secretary… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52061 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh @ Pintu Thakur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

This is the bail application filed on behalf of applicantAkhilesh @ Pintu Thakur, in Case Crime No.108 of 2021, under Sections 452, 376, 420, 323, 506, 313 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhimpura, District- Ballia.

¶7

It is argued that the applicant is innocent. He has no relations with the lady who is major and is of 26 years of age. She is already married and is contesting case under section 125 Cr.P.C. with her husband. The lady wants to marry accused and to create a pressure she has filed this false F.I.R. As per he statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the offence of rape is said to have been committed on her for the first time on 7.8.2017 and in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the date of first rape has been disclosed to be 20.03.2020, so there are major contradictions about the allegations. In statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the child is said to be aborted by doctor wherein in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. it is stated that for the abortion her in-laws gave her some medicine which she consumed and the child was aborted. So it is said that the allegations of the lady are contradictory hence not trustworthy. The accused is in jail since 14.08.2021 hence prayed to be bailed out.

¶8

It is argued on behalf of learned A.G.A. that both in the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. and under section 164 Cr.P.C. the date of first rape has been mentioned same as 20.03.2020 and after that with the consent of their family members the parties start living together and when she became pregnant she was got aborted by the present accused. It is submitted that the lady was promised of marriage and under pressure the present accused used to make physical relations with the lady. When he did not keep his promise of marriage with the lady the present F.I.R. has been lodged. Hence, the prayer is made to reject the bail application.

¶9

If we go through the F.I.R. the lady has reported to be raped by

¶10

the present accused at the point of knife and threat of life is also said given to her when the family members of the victim complained the matter to the family members of the accused then the present accused promised to solemnize marriage with the present victim and bring her with him to Delhi and on the pretend of solemnizing marriage continued physical relations with her and when she got pregnant she was aborted forcefully and now the accused and his family members do not want to keep lady and thus on the false promise of marriage she has been raped for so many times by the accused. It is true that in the first statement of the lady under section 161 Cr.P.C. the date of first rape has been mentioned as 7.8.2017 but in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the additional statement of lady under section 161 Cr.P.C. the date of first rape has come to be 20.3.2020. The offence is said to be committed on the false promise of solemnizing marriage with the lady. The lady was already married and she was living separate from her husband does not make any difference. In my opinion, the offence of the accused is grievous one and no ground for bail is made out.

¶11

The bail application therefore stands rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 17.12.2021 shiv

¶13

Digitally signed by SADHNA RANI THAKUR Date: 2021.12.21 10:09:40 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

akhilesh @ pintu thakur v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

akhilesh @ pintu thakur v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P.

Sri Niwas and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sharan Jatav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra @ Devendra Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Another