The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a rape case where the FIR was lodged after nine years. The court emphasized the belated filing and the familial dispute, conditioning release on a personal bond and two sureties without commenting on the merits of the case.
The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23989 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramakant Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava,Shivajee Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Trivedi
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Shivajee Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Alka Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, Kumari Meena, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 407 of 2021, under Sections 376, 406, 120B, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is cousin brother-in-law of the sister of the victim and he has been falsely implicated by the victim/complainant only due to the reason that there was some dispute going on between applicant and other family members of the victim. He further submitted that the FIR of the present case was lodged in November 2021 with the allegation that in the year 2012 when victim went to her sister's home, then applicant committed rape with her and further in the year 2019 he again committed rape with her and this fact itself shows that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless as, neither any alarm was raised by the victim at the first time in the year 2012 nor any complaint was made in this regard and further even immediately after 2019 no such complaint was made against the applicant by the victim and after about 9 years of first incident and after about 3 years of second incident of the alleged rape, the FIR of the present case was lodged and applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the complainant submitted that there is specific allegation of rape against the applicant in the statement of complainant, but both the counsel could not dispute that victim is the distant relative of applicant and some dispute in respect of demand of money is going on
between both sides and further the FIR of the present case was lodged highly belatedly and no explanation was given by the victim/complainant.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. It is a case, in which the first incident was alleged to have been occurred in the year 2012, but in spite of that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2021 i.e. after more than nine years and applicant is the distant relative of victim/complainant and from the perusal of the statement of complainant appears that some dispute of demand of money was also going on between the applicant side and victim and victim also made accused some other persons of the family of applicant in the present case although, she made the allegation of rape only against the applicant. As, FIR of the present case was lodged by the complainant herself after nine years of the first incident and after three years of second incident of alleged rape, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant- Ramakant Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 21.6.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.06.22 10:32:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations of rape where the FIR was lodged after a significant delay.
Whether the belated lodging of the FIR indicates a mala fide motive in implicating a family relative.
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramakant Sharma
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
