Pankaj Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2017 Latest Caselaw 3124 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26485 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.

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

This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Pankaj Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No.844 of 2015, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Walterganj, District Basti.

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Marriage of the applicant was never settled with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix wanted to marry the applicant, when marriage could not be settled, applicant was falsely implicated.

On behalf of the State bail has been opposed and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that the applicant use to visit her, stay with her and use to have sexual intercourse. On protest, he use to say that he would marry. On 19th May, 2015, he had married elsewhere.

According to the prosecutrix, she was induced for sexual intercourse on the promise to marry.

Law is settled if promise of marry was bonafide and sexual intercourse was consensual, it could not amount to rape. As against this, if promise to marry since its inception was not bonafide it was made to defraud the girl even though the prosecutrix consented for sexual intercourse, her consent could not be a free consent and sexual intercourse would amount to rape.

In the light of this legal position, I have gone through the statements of the prosecutrix. According to the prosecutrix and her mother, promise to marry was not bonafide. It was simply a rouse to have sexual intercourse hence, the present case is not fit for bail.

Bail application is rejected.

Order Date :- 9.8.2017/SKD