High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153956 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33901 of 2023 Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sonkar @ Anil Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri S.R. Verma and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocates on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.R. Verma and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Satendra Kumar Sonkar @ Anil Sonkar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 117 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 08.05.2023 by the victim herself against the applicant on 08.05.2023 alleging therein that she is a resident of Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh and is living in a rented room in Katra, District Prayaraj and preparing for competitive examinations. She met Satendra Kumar Sonkar @ Anil Sonkar the applicant in a cyber cafe who introduced himself as Reporter of DD News channel. He told her that he has good contacts and can get her clear in examinations and shared his mobile number. She called him on which he told her to come to Andhawa as on the said day he was having his birthday, he will give a party and will also get her CCC form filled. On considering the said statement to be true, on 04.05.2023 at about 12.30 pm she was taken by the applicant to a guest house near Andhawa crossing on a motorcycle with his friend Raj Kumar. In Anamika Garden, Andhawa the applicant asked for her ID for filling her form and after sometime took her on the second floor of the said guest house, disrobed her forcibly and committed rape. She went to the Police Station Sarai Inayat to lodge a first information report but the same could not be lodged and her medical examination was not got done. She then gave an application to the higher police officials to get her report lodged. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the version as stated in the first information report. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there are slight contradictions wherein she has added that the applicant gave her water to drink in the room of the guest house after which she became unconscious and then the applicant committed rape upon her. It is argued that the same is an improvement in the prosecution case. Learned counsel has argued that on the own showing of the victim although the applicant had given his mobile number but she had called on his phone and had accompanied him to the guest house. It is argued that the applicant is not involved in the present matter. It is argued while placing paragraph 16 of the affidavit that as a matter of fact the prosecutrix obtained the mobile number of the applicant through net for doing friendship and thereafter she pressurized him for getting married and when he was not ready she blackmailed him and then lodged the present first information report. It is argued that the incident in the present case is of 04.05.2023 but the first information report has been lodged on 08.05.2023 which is after a period of four days for which there is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging of the first information report. It is argued that the victim is a major girl aged about 22 years as stated by her in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the present case is a case of consent. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 22.06.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report, statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations of his misleading the victim on the pretext of getting her some job and then committing rape upon her. 7. Learned counsel for the State has argued that medical examination of the victim supports the prosecution case in as much as the doctor while examining her internally has specifically mentioned that hymen was not found intact, there are signs of inflammation present, it is red in colour and there is oedema also present in it. It is argued that even in the supplementary medico-legal report the doctor has opined that there are signs suggestive of recent forceful penetration of vagina however final opinion is reserved pending availability of FSL report but in so far as physical assessment and physical examination of the victim is concerned, the said opinion was conclusive regarding sexual assault. It is argued that as such the medical evidence also corroborates with the prosecution case. It is further argued that in so far as the delay in lodging of first information report is concerned, the same is duly explained in the first information report itself and even in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she had attempted to lodge a first information report earlier but the same was not lodged by the concerned police station and even her medical was not done. Later on, when she moved application to various higher officials and authorities then her first information report was lodged. It is argued that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. There are allegations of his committing rape with the victim. The medical examination of the victim supports the prosecution case. The supplementary medico-legal report is also suggestive of recent sexual assault on her. There is no ground for false implication. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 2.8.2023 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad