High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51316 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7599 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhisekh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadaful Islam Jafri,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. In compliance of order of this Court, learned A.G.A. has filed the personal affidavits of Sri Saurabh Dixit, Superintendent of Police, Firozabad and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, Inspector In- charge, P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad, which are taken on record. 4. Circle Officer, Sirsaganj, District Firozabad on behalf of S.P., Firozabad and the Investigating Officer of the present case are present before this Court. The personal appearance of SP, Firozabad and the Investigating Officer of the instant case is, hereby, dispensed with. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.96 of 2023, under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Shikhohabad, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person Dharmendra @ Billa are stated to have forcibly put the victim in their Fortuner Car bearing no.UP83AE2223 on 8.2.2023 between 10:00-11:00 p.m. and committed gang-rape with her and thereupon had left her on the road. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is employed in CRPF and is posted at Kashmir. It is true that he was Facebook friend of the victim and used to talk to her, but the allegations that he alongwith co-accused person had committed rape with her are false. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is in a habit of filing frivolous FIRs against several persons. The details whereof stand mentioned in the paragraph-20 of the affidavit filed with bail application. In addition to the instant case, the victim has filed 10 other FIRs and complaint cases against several persons, which are almost of similar nature, as such, it is a clear cut case of honey trap. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim has even refused to give her clothes to the Investigating Officer for examination. The victim is major aged about 42 years and the applicant is much younger than the victim aged about 30 years. It is further stated that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that the victim has filed certain cases against her in-laws, as such, they have nothing to do with the instant case and the allegations that victim is used to filing frivolous FIRs are false. 11. Learned A.G.A. has stated that affidavit of SP, Firozabad has been filed which indicates that the victim has filed about 10 FIRs/complaint cases against several persons and the report thereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the said affidavit. As such, it is a clear cut case of perjury committed by the victim. 12. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that the FIR is delayed and there is no medical corroboration of the incident coupled by the fact that several FIRs have been instituted by the victim, and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Abhisekh, who is involved in 14. Let the applicant- aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad