Application seeking bail in a rape and kidnapping case where the accused was added to the charge later. The High Court allowed bail noting a major deviation in the victim's statement and lack of initial implicate.
Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.
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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8279 of 2023
Applicant :- Arjun Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarjeet Yadav,Vibha Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Amarjeet Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.
The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 180 of 2022, under Sections 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.
FIR of the present case was lodged against two named persons (non applicant) and one unknown person under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC and according to the FIR on 01.04.2022 daughter of the informant aged about 18 years was kidnapped by co-accused Prahlad Giri, Pappu Giri and one unknown person and since then his daughter is missing.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.05.2022 through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 04.05.2022 i.e. after about more than one month from the date of incident and this fact clearly suggests that FIR was delayed and based on wrong facts. He further submits, applicant is not named in the FIR.
He further submits that when the statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then she reiterated the version of the FIR and did not even disclose the name of applicant and when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she developed the story and disclosed the name of applicant and stated that he was sold by one lady to the applicant and applicant also committed rape with her and number of other omnibus allegations were made by the victim against the applicant and others and no reliance can be placed on such version. He further submits that admittedly victim is major girl and applicant has performed
marriage with her, therefore, no offence of rape is made out.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim alleged that applicant committed rape with her and she was sold by a lady to the applicant but could not dispute the fact that no such story was narrated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her earlier statement she reiterated the version of the FIR and FIR of the present case was lodged on the basis of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was also moved after about one month.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
FIR of the present case was lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against two named and one unknown person and application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after about one month. Applicant was neither named in the FIR nor his complicity was revealed by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she reiterated the version of the FIR but when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she disclosed the name of applicant and it appears that she developed a new story in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and stated that she was sold to the applicant by one Baitha Devi and applicant also committed rape with her and she also raised number of other allegation against the applicant and other accused persons. Story narrated by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not only clear deviation from her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but it also does not inspire any confidence.
Therefore, from the discussion made above, in view of this Court, it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant - Arjun Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 17.4.2023 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the substantial deviations in the victim's statement between Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. justify granting bail.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR based on a Section 156(3) application affects the applicant's bail eligibility.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Arjun Pal
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
Anupam Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
