High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2882 of 2022 Applicant :- Rishabh Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adwait Singh Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, which is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Adwait Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Rishabh Dixit in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0864 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Paschimi (Commissionarate Kanpur Nagar), with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecutrix in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, it would be revealed that the prosecutrix on the date and time of the alleged incident was major as per her educational certificate. The incident is reported to be of 08.06.2021 in the first information report, however, the first information report has been lodged with considerable delay on 15.10.2021 and no explanation of such a huge delay has been given either in the first information report or in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecutrix as is evident from the first information report and her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is to the tune that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the applicant had cohabited with the prosecutrix and thereafter when she insisted for marriage he assaulted her and refuse to marry. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix is stated that they had married on 13.06.2021 in Vaishno Devi Temple and thereafter they cohabited and resided on rented accommodation in Ludhiana, Punjab and they remained as husband and wife for three months i.e. till 11.09.2021 and returned to Kanpur, and thereafter the applicant started assaulting the prosecutrix and had also ousted her from his house. Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that even if the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is believed in its entirety, it appears to be a dispute between legally married husband and wife and the question of committing rape is added only for the purpose of aggravation of the case. By referring to the counter affidavit filed today by the opposite party no.3, it is vehemently submitted that it is admitted to the prosecutrix also that the applicant and prosecutrix were married and as they belongs to the different castes their marriage was not recognized by their parents and it was only on account of the pressure of the family of the prosecutrix the F.I.R. was lodged. It is also submitted that the investigating officer of the instant case without there being any material is making all out efforts to arrest the applicant and thus, protection from arrest be granted to him. Shri Adwait Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 submits that the prosecutrix (opposite party no.3) and the instant applicant namely Rishabh Dixit were married and as they belong to different caste their marriage was opposed by their parents and the prosecutrix is major and is capable of taking decisions and the F.I.R. in this case was lodged on the persuasion of her father and now she had managed to free herself from the clutches of her father and had also entered into a written compromise dated 11.03.2022 with the instant applicant. It is further submitted that the dispute between the prosecutrix and the applicant was of matrimonial nature and there was no question of committing rape, etc. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the counter affidavit has been filed by the prosecutrix as they appears to have settled the matter amicably. However, having regard to the nature of the offence compromise is not possible. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that though in the first information report as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is alleged that the rape was committed by the instant applicant with the prosecutrix. However, it is also evident that in statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated she and applicant had married on 13.06.2021 and thereafter they resided in Ludhiana, Punjab as husband and wife for three months and thereafter returned to Kanpur and thereafter matrimonial differences appears to have arisen between them and thereafter applicant started assaulting and committing cruelty with her. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that since the factum of solemnizing marriage has been admitted to the prosecutrix (opposite party no.3) and she was major at the date and time of the alleged incident, the factum of committing rape by applicant (husband) on prosecutrix (wife) is out of question and the prosecutrix has also admitted the same in her counter affidavit filed today and apart from statement of prosecutrix there is no other material available with the investigating officer. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the prosecutrix is major as per her education qualification certificates filed along with the counter affidavit and factum of marriage has been admitted by her in the counter affidavit filed today and also the fact that first information report is admitted to have been lodged by her on the persuasion of her father, in the considered opinion of this Court, protection from arrest till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. could be granted to the applicant. Thus, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant is allowed to the tune that till submission of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of the applicant- Rishabh Dixit involved in the above noted case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact to the investigating officer as and when required; (2) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (3) The applicant shall not leave the District concerned without the previous permission of the Court. Order Date :- 5.5.2022 Praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.05.05 18:20:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad