Allahabad High Court
Farukh @ Bandar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 July, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9396 of 2021 Applicant :- Farukh @ Bandar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Krishnakant Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
Vide order dated 23.02.2021, notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2. As per the office report dated 23.03.2021, a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 20.03.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party No. 2.
No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Farukh @ Bandar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 59 of 2020, under Sections 363, 342, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is argued that the mother of the victim is a lady of bad character and thus for the purpose of blackmailing the applicant and other accused persons, the present first information report has been registered to falsely implicate the accused. The said argument is raised on the basis of the statement of one of the victims recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the said victim has also stated that there was no rape committed on her and lodging of the first information report by her mother is false. It is argued that the second victim under pressure of the mother has stated that rape was committed upon her by the applicant. Learned counsel has stated that the victims have been recovered by the police who are hail and hearty. It is argued that as such, the implication of the applicant is false. It is further argued that the applicant and four other co-accused persons had challenged the present first information report before this Court in a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5449 of 2020 (Danish and 04 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) in which vide order dated 16.06.2020, the arrest of the petitioners therein was stayed. The copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit. It is argued that subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous as the charge-sheet has been submitted. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 18.07.2020.
Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the first information report, there is a specific allegation against the applicant of committing rape upon one of the victim girls who was a minor. It is further argued that even the medical examination report of the said victim girl, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit and the opinion of the doctor, therein, clearly shows that sexual assault cannot be ruled out on the said victim. It is next argued that the victim girl was a minor and she was stated to be 12 years of age in the first information report. It is argued that as such, the matter is serious in nature and the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that there are allegations of rape against the applicant. There is a specific allegation of the applicant committing rape on a girl who is stated to be 12 years of age in the first information report and even the doctor did not dispute the fact that rape was not committed and sexual assault cannot be ruled out on her. The applicant is named in the first information report and in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)