This judgment rejects a bail application for an applicant charged with abduction and rape. The court refused parity with co-accused as they faced no rape allegations. The court held that specific rape allegations constitute a heinous offence, making it an unsuitable case for bail.
Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2748
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 329 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Sohel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Khusboo Sharma,Yogendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Tripathi,Ravindra Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State.
The allegation in the FIR is that daughter of the informant aged about 16 years was abducted on 20.03.2021 by the applicant and three other unknown persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrixvictim is a consenting party which is apparent from perusal of the the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant and the prosecutrix have married. There is no corroborative evidence in the medical report of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that according to the school record, the victim is major. Co-accused persons Suraj Singh and Vikas Yadav have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 30.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 passed in Bail Application No. 4699 of 2022 and 5760 of 2022. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the order of the co-accused persons.
The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.03.2022 without having any criminal antecedent.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. They have submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has levelled allegation of rape against the applicant. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim again made repeated allegation of rape against the applicant. Against the co-accused persons namely Suraj Singh, Vikas Yadav, Vikas Yadav (of another village), the victim has alleged that they have caught hold of her. They lastly submits that it is a heinous offence.
Perused the record.
Perusal of the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C., shows that specific allegation of rape is only against the present applicant. So far as the allegation made against the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail are concerned, no allegation of rape has been made by the victim against them and therefore, prayer for parity is refused.
On due consideration to the fact that specific allegation of committing rape has been levelled by the victim against the applicant and considering the fact that it is a heinous offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Mohd. Sohel, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 112/2022, under Sections 363/366/376-D/506 IPC, Police Station - Salon, District - Rae Bareli, is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 5.1.2024/R.C.
Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted when the specific allegation of rape is levelled by the victim against the applicant.
Whether parity with co-accused granted bail can be applied to the applicant charged with rape.
Mohd. Sohel
State Of U.P.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
