Allahabad High Court
Mannawar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9821 of 2022 Appellant :- Mannawar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sunil Vashistha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.
Notice has been served on opposite party no. 2 but no one appears on her behalf.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after investigation on filing charge-sheet, Section 385 I.P.C. has been added to the crime number. The appellant has annexed rejection order of the trial court in Section 385 I.P.C. He has made a prayer for correction of Section 385 I.P.C. in the memo of appeal and prayer clause of the memo of appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to make correction in the headnote of memo of appeal and prayer clause of the memo of appeal by adding Section 385 I.P.C. in the case crime number.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Meerut, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellant's Bail Application No. 6541 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2022, under Sections 376, 385, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ganganagar, District Meerut.
As per prosecution case appellant-accused entered into the house of the informant/victim on the pretext of asking for water and obtained her mobile number. He would call her during nights and would obscene talks with her. Appellant-accused was working as labour in construction of a pathway before the house of the informant/victim, who is a divorcee, living with her two children. Appellant-accused entered into her house, when her son had gone to school, committed rape on her and prepared an obscene video thereof. He threatened to kill her son Harsh alias Anmol, if she complain against him. The appellant extorted Rs. 50,000/- under the threat that he will kill her son and make her obscene video viral.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a gap of five months, which shows that the relationship between them were consensual and when the dispute arose between them then only the informant lodged the FIR against the appellant. It has been submitted that the alleged obscene video of the informant has not been produced nor the contents of the video has been mentioned in the case diary. It has also been submitted that the payment of instalments by the victim for the mobile purchased in the name of appellant is due to their consensual relationship. It has also been submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 02.08.2022.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. It is submitted that delay in lodging of FIR was due to threat given by the appellant to kill the informant's son, on the way to school as well as the appellant's threat to make the informant's obscene video viral. It has further submitted that the police has recovered a pen drive relating to obscene video of the informant from the appellant. It has also been submitted that under the aforesaid threat, the appellant coerced the victim to make payment for the mobile purchased in his name. It is submitted that the instalments in the sum of Rs. 1000/- on 25.04.2022 and Rs. 1000/- on 03.06.2022 and Rs. 500/- on 03.06.2022 were transferred in Account No. 201004596166 of the appellant at the Indside Bank, Branch Ganganagar.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., statements of witnesses, namely, Gopal, Subhash, Navin Jain, Vijendra Singh, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the fact that the informant deposited instalment for purchase of mobile by the appellant, but without commenting on the merit of the case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 13.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya