Single judge considered an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. in a rape and mischief case. The applicant argued for false implication and counterblast, which were rejected as grounds for anticipatory bail.
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. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13233 of 2022
Applicant :- Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahtab Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Mahtab Alam, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 461 of 2022, under Sections 323, 354, 376, 452, 504, 506, 511 I.P.C., P.S.- Bithari Chainpur, District- Bareilly.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have come to the house of the informant on 28.7.2022 on the pretext that he shall get her a job and is stated to have raped her and is stated to have even passed indecent remarks against her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has also stated that the present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR filed by the mother of the applicant against the informant and her family members. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is a law student and is a member of the press club, Bareilly.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the present FIR was instituted prior to the FIR instituted by the mother of the applicant. The said FIR lodged by the mother of the applicant has been instituted four days after the present FIR i.e. 7.8.2022, as such, the present FIR cannot be termed as a counterblast to the FIR No. 472 of 2022.
Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the arguments tendered at Bar and taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertains to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at this stage.
In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Shalini
Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in the FIR registered against him for offence under Sections 323, 354, 376 IPC.
Whether the claim that the FIR is a counterblast to a subsequent FIR filed by the applicant's mother constitutes a fit ground for anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hasan
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
