High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Manish Gond alias Manish Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0321 of 2024, under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, police station Gandhi Park, district Aligarh seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, victim lodged a first information report on 25.07.2024 under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology Act against the applicant stating inter alia that the applicant is her nephew and son of her sister-in-law, due to which he used to come to her house. She resides separately in the same house where her in-laws are residing. Her husband went to Gurgaon for doing private job, and at that time, she was alone at home. On 04.04.2024 at abut 01:00 P.M. applicant came to her house. Since victim was ill, therefore, the applicant repeatedly asked her to take her with him to get the medicine. The victim refused, but on making repeated request by the applicant, she went with him for taking medicine. On the pretext of getting medicines, he took her to OYO hotel near SJD Hospital, Police Station Gandhi Park and got a room opened from hotel owner. He made her to sit in the room and after some time, he brought cold-drink and made her to drink that by mixing some intoxicated substance, upon which, she fainted. The applicant forcibly committed rape on the victim being in unconscious state and made her obscene video. After some time when she regained consciousness, she saw that the applicant was lying beside her and she was naked. When she protested, applicant started abusing by putting a gun at her temple and threatened that if she tells about this to anyone, he will kill her and will ruin her reputation making her video viral. When the husband of the victim returned from Gurgaon, she told him the entire incident. Applicant with an intention of blackmailing, posted her obscene photos/videos on Facebook and is threatening to kill her husband.

4. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of money dispute between the applicant and the victim's husband. In this regard, it is submitted that during pandemic Covid-19, victim's husband had borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the applicant but he did not return said amount. On mounting pressure and demanding his money, he has been implicated by husband of the victim getting a false and concocted first information report lodged through his wife after a delay of 03 months and 21 days. It is also pointed out that though the victim has made allegation of rape against the applicant but in the medical examination report, no injury was found on her body. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 18.09.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also pointed out that during investigation, investigating ofÏcer has recorded the statement of the hotel owner, who has confirmed that on 03.04.2024, applicant had come to his hotel "Relax In" along with a woman and stayed in Room No.109 and also made payment of hotel rent. The certified copy of receipt for booking room was also given by the hotel owner, which has been made part of case diary. On 18.09.2024 mobile phone of the applicant has also been recovered by the investigating ofÏcer. In case diary, it is also mentioned by the investigating ofÏcer that photos clicked during incident inside the room of hotel Relax In and current photo clearly match the background and bed of Room No.109 of Relax In. Charge-sheet under Section 67 I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008 has also been filed in the matter. Lastly it is submitted that considering the gravity of offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that applicant is real nephew of the victim. As per prosecution case, he has not only satisfied his lust adopting different modus operandi but also put the said relation on shame. The offence is heinous in nature. Victim has supported the F.I.R. version in her statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. As on date, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of the victim and presume to false implication of the applicant. Defence set-up on behalf of the applicant, as noted above, is also not corroborated from the material evidence on record.

7. Since the allegations of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial Court, hence this Court at this stage is not recording any finding, so that it may not effect the trial of the applicant.

8. This Court is of the view that sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and chastity of a female. It is serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim, it leaves behind a traumatic experience, a rapist not only cause physical injuries, but more indelibly leaves a blot on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. dignity and reputation.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, severity of punishment and reasons as noted above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

11. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Manish Gond alias Manish Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0321 of 2024, under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, police station Gandhi Park, district Aligarh seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, victim lodged a first information report on 25.07.2024 under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology Act against the applicant stating inter alia that the applicant is her nephew and son of her sister-in-law, due to which he used to come to her house. She resides separately in the same house where her in-laws are residing. Her husband went to Gurgaon for doing private job, and at that time, she was alone at home. On 04.04.2024 at abut 01:00 P.M. applicant came to her house. Since victim was ill, therefore, the applicant repeatedly asked her to take her with him to get the medicine. The victim refused, but on making repeated request by the applicant, she went with him for taking medicine. On the pretext of getting medicines, he took her to OYO hotel near SJD Hospital, Police Station Gandhi Park and got a room opened from hotel owner. He made her to sit in the room and after some time, he brought cold-drink and made her to drink that by mixing some intoxicated substance, upon which, she fainted. The applicant forcibly committed rape on the victim being in unconscious state and made her obscene video. After some time when she regained consciousness, she saw that the applicant was lying beside her and she was naked. When she protested, applicant started abusing by putting a gun at her temple and threatened that if she tells about this to anyone, he will kill her and will ruin her reputation making her video viral. When the husband of the victim returned from Gurgaon, she told him the entire incident. Applicant with an intention of blackmailing, posted her obscene photos/videos on Facebook and is threatening to kill her husband.

4. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of money dispute between the applicant and the victim's husband. In this regard, it is submitted that during pandemic Covid-19, victim's husband had borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the applicant but he did not return said amount. On mounting pressure and demanding his money, he has been implicated by husband of the victim getting a false and concocted first information report lodged through his wife after a delay of 03 months and 21 days. It is also pointed out that though the victim has made allegation of rape against the applicant but in the medical examination report, no injury was found on her body. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 18.09.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also pointed out that during investigation, investigating ofÏcer has recorded the statement of the hotel owner, who has confirmed that on 03.04.2024, applicant had come to his hotel "Relax In" along with a woman and stayed in Room No.109 and also made payment of hotel rent. The certified copy of receipt for booking room was also given by the hotel owner, which has been made part of case diary. On 18.09.2024 mobile phone of the applicant has also been recovered by the investigating ofÏcer. In case diary, it is also mentioned by the investigating ofÏcer that photos clicked during incident inside the room of hotel Relax In and current photo clearly match the background and bed of Room No.109 of Relax In. Charge-sheet under Section 67 I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008 has also been filed in the matter. Lastly it is submitted that considering the gravity of offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that applicant is real nephew of the victim. As per prosecution case, he has not only satisfied his lust adopting different modus operandi but also put the said relation on shame. The offence is heinous in nature. Victim has supported the F.I.R. version in her statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. As on date, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of the victim and presume to false implication of the applicant. Defence set-up on behalf of the applicant, as noted above, is also not corroborated from the material evidence on record.

7. Since the allegations of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial Court, hence this Court at this stage is not recording any finding, so that it may not effect the trial of the applicant.

8. This Court is of the view that sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and chastity of a female. It is serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim, it leaves behind a traumatic experience, a rapist not only cause physical injuries, but more indelibly leaves a blot on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. dignity and reputation.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, severity of punishment and reasons as noted above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

11. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad