Allahabad High Court
Neeraj vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2017
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25950 of 2017
Applicant :- Neeraj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2016, u/ss. 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Binawar, District- Budaun.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the other family members of victim have not supported the prosecution story. It was also pointed out that the F.I.R. was lodged with delay without having any adequate explanation which speaks about the concocted nature of the prosecution. It was further submitted that as the medical examination also does not corroborate the prosecution allegations, therefore, the applicant should be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and it was emphasized that the age of the victim girl is about four years and she was of very tender age. It was further emphasized that the accused happens to be the real uncle of the victim. Attention was drawn to the statement of the victim in which she stated unambiguously that her uncle had taken her on the pretext of feeding and then after denuding her committed the foul thing with her which caused pain and blood. She also gave out the name of her uncle as Neeraj, who is the present applicant. Learned A.G.A. has also drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the F.I.R. which show that the F.I.R.was lodged by the mother of the victim and she gave the details as to how after she found her daughter in a badly crestfallen state it was disclosed to her by the victim that the applicant had done the wrong thing with her. She raised this issue with her family but the other family members were more interested in saving the honour of the family and tried their best to suppress the incident. Record shows that in order to muzzle the voice of the victim and her mother, the other family members even physically assaulted upon the first informant and gave threat to kill her child if she at all reported the matter to the police. She was also kept under wrongful confinement for a long period of time and it was only after the information reached the parental side of the first informant that somehow she along with her parents went to the police station and reported the matter against the applicant. In fact, at the initial stage she could not succeed to get the F.I.R. registered even in the local police station and it was only on the interference of the Inspector General of Police, Zone that the F.I.R. against the applicant was got registered. Submission is that not only the entire aforesaid details have been given in the F.I.R. but the entire evolution of the events has been given in the F.I.R. which furnishes quite a sufficient explanation for the delay and it cannot be said that the same has remained unexplained. Actually there is nothing unnatural about the prosecution story and in fact, it is not an unprecedented happening that when such close relatives or family members are involved in such kind of crimes which involve the element of infamy then there is always a tendency to somehow save the facade of the family prestige and not to let the matter come up in public. But feelings of the mother are different and the tears of her daughter and pangs of victim's trauma appear to have proved stronger which far outweighed all other worldly considerations and made her mother adamant who decided to bring the guilty to book and that is why even after so much resistance from the other family members this F.I.R. was lodged bringing the guilty to answer the charge. Submission is that a girl of such tender age has no earthly motive to falsely implicate the applicant specially when he happens to be her real uncle. Even the first informant is not having any motive to falsely implicate the applicant. According to the learned A.G.A., so far as the medical aspect of the victim is concerned, it is so obviously clear that she was medically examined after about four weeks of the incident and there was hardly any chance for the doctor to find any injury on her body at that belated stage. Contention is that in such circumstances neither the delay in lodging the F.I.R. can be construed adversely against the prosecution nor the absence of the injury on the victim. Argument is that the close blood relationship of the victim with the accused, who happens to be her real uncle and the nature of the offence committed by the applicant, makes it an egregious crime and speaks about the depravity of the applicant's character and no liberal view in such matter is called for.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 19.7.2017
Naresh
