Allowed

Tarik v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2022BAIL/7980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application arising from a rape trial, the court addressed inconsistencies in the victim's statements regarding the timing of alleged incidents. The court found that material contradictions in statements and a lack of apprehension regarding absconding justified granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused Tarik released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, cooperation, and no new offences.

Tarik Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7980 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tarik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Tarik for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 299 of 2021, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, no penal offence could attract and the allegations contained in the first information report as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are highly improbable and could not be believed and if taken on their face, it will appear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

¶9

It is further submitted that as per the version of the prosecution the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years and had lodged the first information report on 01.10.2021 at 6:20 pm. at Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor stating therein that for the last five years the applicant on the false promise of marriage is committing rape on her and whenever she insisted of marrying, he did not give any answer and on 19.09.2021 at 1:00 pm. when her mother was away from home for the purpose of taking medicines he entered her house and committed sexual intercourse with her and when she insisted for marriage he became angry and started abusing and assaulting her. He is also intimidating her and is also placing hindrances in her marriage. It is also stated in the first information report that earlier when she was pregnant by five months the applicant had given her some medicines for the purpose of abortion.

¶10

Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted by

¶11

learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix as per her own statement and as per the educational certificate collected by the investigating officer was aged about 20 years on 19.09.2021, when for the last time, as per the prosecutrix, the sexual intercourse was committed with her by the applicant.

¶12

It is also submitted that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was categorically asked by the investigating officer as to whether she had consulted with any doctor when she was allegedly pregnant, she answered that she did not consult any doctor and also that the clothes worn by her at the time of the alleged rape has been thrown by her in dustbin.

¶13

It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate has not referred to the incident of date 19.09.2021 and there is material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, no significant abnormality has been found in the medical examination report of the prosecutrix and in her statement given to the doctor at the time of the medical examination she has stated that the applicant had only make an attempt to rape and assaulted her and it was two months before the last time sexual activity had taken place.

¶14

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 02.10.2021 and he is not having any criminal history. Chargesheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the first information report in this case was lodged by the prosecutrix. In the F.I.R. an incident of date 19.09.2021 at 1:00 pm. has been shown with the allegations that on this date and time the applicant had committed rape with the prosecutrix, however, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no reference of the incident which had allegedly occurred on 19.09.2021. In the statement of the prosecutrix given to the doctor at the time of her medical examination she has stated that the last sexual activity with the applicant had taken place about two months before. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that it is a case of consensual sexual activity, as the prosecutrix

¶17

was major and was capable of making decisions, no offence has been committed by the applicant. Applicant is in jail in this case since 02.10.2021 without any previous criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet in this case has also been submitted and the presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶19

Let the accused/applicant- Tarik involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 26.4.2022 Praveen

¶27

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.04.26 14:05:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tarik v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarik 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajat Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Adesh Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nazma Vs State of U.P.

Chameli Vs State of U.P.