Allahabad High Court
Kripashankar Patel vs State Of U.P.And Another on 28 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2696 of 2022 Applicant :- Kripashankar Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar,Chandan Sharma,Susheel Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant -Kripashankar Patel in Case Crime No. 344 of 2021, under Sections 376, 384 IPC and Section 67-A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, with the prayer to grant him anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that all the allegations contained in the first information report as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are patently false, improbable and could not be believed in view of the fact that the prosecutrix has alleged that on 15th September, 2019 when the prosecutrix was alone in her house the applicant committed rape on her while the applicant from 12th September, 2019 till 2nd October, 2019 was not even in India as he was in Dubai. Thus all the contents of of the FIR are false.
It is further submitted that no photograph or video of the prosecutrix has been made by the applicant and the incident of 8.3.2021 which allegedly happened in Sasural of the prosecutrix could also not be believed as it is highly improbable for any one to have gone to Sasural of the prosecutrix in presence of his in-laws. Likewise incident of sending of obscene photo and other material on the mobile phone of the husband of the prosecutrix is also false and the incident has been aggravated while the applicant is innocent and is ready to cooperate in the investigation. He is also not having criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being granted the protection from arrest he may flee from the course of law or may other misuse the liberty.
Learned AGA on the other submits that the applicant has committed heinous offences and having regard to the facts that the allegation of the FIR has been fortified by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the whats app chat which has been retrieved from the mobile phone of the husband of the prosecutrix would also reveal that the applicant was in constant touch with the husband of the prosecutrix and have also sent obscene photos and messages on his telephone, thus the applicant is not entitled for any protection.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that in the first information report as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the allegations of rape, sending of obscene photos, videos and messages on the mobile phone of her husband and also of threatening her and committing rape during the days of 'Durga Pooja' by the applicant have been levelled by the prosecutrix. The main ground which has been taken by the applicant in his defence is to the tune that on date 15.9.2019 on which allegation of committing rape by the applicant with the prosecutrix has been levelled, the applicant was not present in India as he had gone to Dubai on 12.9.2019 and had returned on 2nd October, 2019 which is fortified by the photo stat copies of the passport of the applicant wherein his departure from India has been shown on 12.9.2019 and checking in return has been shown on 2nd October, 2019.
Perusal of statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in this regard, would reveal that she has not specified any date on which the rape was committed with her by the applicant and only it has been stated that the rape was committed during the days of 'Durga Pooja'. Moreover, first information report is not an encyclopedia of the incident and apart from the incident of rape other grave allegations pertaining to sending obscene videos and pictures and intimidating the prosecutrix and her husband of making these pictures and videos viral on social media has been attributed to the applicant. In the case diary transcript of whats app chats of the applicant with the husband of the prosecutrix has also been enclosed, which has been premature fortified the allegations and the version of the prosecution.
Thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab; (1980)2 SCC 655, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra 2011)1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1and P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in MANU/SC/1209/2019, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant is hereby rejected.
Observations made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of anticipatory bail application and the same shall not be construed as an opinion on merits of the case.
Order Date :- 28.4.2022 Muk