Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1658 (ALL)

Sudhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2023-07-12

SAMIT GOPAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sudhir Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 116 of 2019, under Section 376 IPC and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at P.S. C.B.Ganj, District Bareilly. 3. The first information report of the case was lodged on 23.03.2019 by Rajvir Singh against the applicant alleging therein that on 20.03.2019, he and his family members were not in the house. His daughter/victim/prosecutrix was alone there. Taking advantage of it, applicant lured his daughter and took her near a pond and committed rape upon her. His daughter is aged about 12 years. At the time of incident, victim started shouting and then on hearing it, they reached the place of occurrence after which applicant ran away. The incident is of about 10:00 PM. On asking, the victim disclosed the name of the applicant as Sudhir and told him that he has committed rape upon her. The villagers tried to get the matter settled due to which they did not report to the police station but has now come to lodge the first information report. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that family of the victim is in the habit of lodging false case against the applicant. It is argued that even previously on 14.05.2018 the first information report was lodged against the applicant by the grandfather of the prosecutrix under Sections 354ka, 452, 352, 504 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, alleging therein that the applicant outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. The said matter was compromised between the parties and did not reach to the trial court. It is argued that subsequently, father of the victim has lodged the present first information report on totally false, frivolous and baseless versions. It is argued that victim was subjected to medical examination. The doctor did not find any bodily injury on the person of the victim. It is argued that subsequently, father of the victim has lodged the present first information report on totally false, frivolous and baseless versions. It is argued that victim was subjected to medical examination. The doctor did not find any bodily injury on the person of the victim. It is argued that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated of different place of occurrence. It is argued that as such there are contradiction in the statement of the victim and the prosecution version with regard to the place of occurrence. It is further argued while placing annexure-8 to the affidavit in support of the bail application that victim under guardianship of her grandfather has given an application along with affidavit to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly denying the fact that the applicant committed rape upon her. It is argued that even the same would go to show that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the trial in the matter has started in which first informant and the victim have been examined who did not support the prosecution version. It is further argued that applicant has never been prosecuted for any criminal case as stated in para-18 of the affidavit except this case. It is lastly argued that applicant is in jail since 15.04.2019. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim, as per first information report, is aged about 12 years which is not in dispute. It is argued that even in the previous first information report lodged by the grandfather of the victim wherein age of the victim was stated to be about 10 years and as such now at the time of present incident, victim is minor who is stated to be 12 years which has also not been disputed. It is argued that the prosecution version in the FIR and in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., there is allegation against the applicant of committing rape upon her. It is argued that filing of the alleged affidavit before the S.S.P. concerned at this stage will not have any effect in the matter but the same would go to show there had been tampering with evidence. It is argued that filing of the alleged affidavit before the S.S.P. concerned at this stage will not have any effect in the matter but the same would go to show there had been tampering with evidence. It is argued that as per argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, the trial is in progress, as such, release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect. Further, it is argued that applicant is named even in the previous first information report for outraging the modesty of the victim although the said matter was got settled between the parties. 6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that there is allegation against the applicant of committing rape upon the victim. In the previous FIR, applicant was named to outrage the modesty of the victim, however, it was got settled between the parties. The victim in her statement both under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution case. The victim is aged about 12 years and is a minor girl. 7. In view of the same, trial is stated to be under progress, release of the applicant may have an adverse effect at this stage, thus, bail application stands rejected. 8. After dismissal of the application, learned counsel for the applicant submits that appropriate direction be issued to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the trial. Applicant may move an application to expedite the trial before the concerned court on which the trial court may pass appropriate order in view of prevailing back log and other accompanying circumstances. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not passed any order directing the trial court to expedite the trial.