Dismissed

Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2023BAIL/55143/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court rejected the plea of an appellant accused of rape and extraction of money. The Court noted conflicting victim statements but relied on prosecution evidence to dismiss the bail prayer due to the heinous nature of the offense.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to record victim's statement within one month.

Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118310

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55143 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Salman alias Baqar alias Chhote, who is involved in Case Crime No. 300 of 2022, under Section 376D, 506 IPC, police station Civil Lines, district Rampur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution case, in brief, the first information report has been lodged by the victim herself against the present applicant Salman and Mohsin inter alia with the allegations that the applicant has developed friendship with the victim, who called the victim at hotel Greenwood and after administering intoxicated substance, committed rape upon the victim. Thereafter, applicant again committed rape upon the victim at Moradabad and Gajraula at hotel Tadka several times and made obscene video of the same. On the strength of the aforesaid obscene video, they extracted a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the victim. At the behest of accused persons she has also transferred Rs. 3,00,000/- in the account of Nawab Ali, Tabassum and Asgar Khan. The FIR further alleges that the applicant has also kept the ATM card of the victim. The details of the account numbers on which the amount was transferred has also been given in the FIR.

¶9

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim was consenting with the applicant. It is next submitted that though she has

¶10

made allegation of rape on her by both the accused and giving total Rs. 12,00,000/- to the applicant, but transaction of only three lac has been made in the account of the applicant and his relatives. It is also contended that during investigation, statements of Shan Ali, and Khursheed, who are the owner and Manager of Hotel Lord have been recorded who have stated that prosecutrix used to come to the hotel with two men and as per her gesture, it appeared that she was very much comfortable with them. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant does not have any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 09.6.2022.

¶11

This Court considering the peculiar facts of the case and in order to give an opportunity of hearing to the victim also, had directed the SHO, police station Civil Lines, Rampur vide order dated 17.5.2023 to produce the victim before this Court. Pursuant to the said order, Shri Sharad Panwar, SHO Civil Lines, district Rampur, along with Constable Archna Lili, Vishal Kumar and Parul Tyagi have produced the victim before this Court today, who has stated inter alia that both the accused of this case on the pretext of providing job to her started making physical relation with her and gradually they extracted total Rs. 12,00,000/- from her adopting different modus operandi. She also stated that she gave money to the accused persons by mortgaging her land. The accused-applicant neither provided job to her nor returned her money. On making demand by her, she was threatened to kill. She was forced to enter into prostitution for her livelihood. She has also expressed apprehension that any untoward incident may happen to her and her children.

¶12

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have supported the prosecution case. It is further contended that details of the amount and account numbers have also been given in the FIR,

¶13

which goes to suggest that transaction has been made. It is also submitted that this is an organized gang, who trap innocent girls and women in their net and after that they blackmailing the victim, extract money from them. The offence is very heinous in nature and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. On the pretext of providing job to the victim, she was sexually abused by the accused persons and extracted huge amount from her.

¶15

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to record the statement of the victim within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

The superintendent of Police, Rampur shall ensure the production of the victim, safely before the trial court on the dates whenever her presence is required.

¶18

Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the trial court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Rampur immediately.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Ishrat

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjanam @ Majhi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Malik Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Sohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shaukeen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.