Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Soheb @ Sebu vs State Of U.P. on 31 July, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27833 of 2018
Applicant :- Mohammad Soheb @ Sebu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocates have filed joint power on behalf of the complainant today in Court, which has been taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant.
Perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that though the allegations as have been made against the applicant show that the act and conduct of the applicant cannot be justified morally and even to an extent legally, but totality of facts and circumstances of the case are such which makes it manifestly clear that the victim was all the time a willing and consenting party and she had been carrying her mutual love affair and the consequent physical relationship with the applicant for long. This wilful sexual relationship in fact continued for the last eight years. According to her own admission she used to go with the applicant to the hotel and also to his house. Later on as their relationship could not fructify into marriage, she married with a third person namely Abdul Aziz. In fact it can be deduced by reading in between the lines that even after she entered into married life with the aforesaid Abdul Aziz, the relationship of the two continued. According to the allegation made by the victim it was the applicant who interfered in her marital life but then it has still been admitted that at some stage she decided to take divorce from the aforesaid Abdul Aziz. It further transpires that she also made a complaint against aforesaid Abdul Aziz at the behest of the applicant. Submission is that totality of the facts and circumstances of the case are such which make it clear that the victim went against her husband Abdul Aziz on the asking of the applicant and that is also to a great extent showing her deep involvement in the relationship with the applicant. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that actually the victim is blackmailing the applicant and wants to extort money which the applicant has failed to fulfil and that has actually resulted into the present prosecution of the applicant. Counsel has tried to place reliance upon annexure no. 7 of the application in order to show that in fact at some stage the applicant also gave Rs. 5,00,000/- to the victim and the father of the victim namely Israr Ullah executed a Notary Affidavit admitting the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages and compensation to his daughter, the victim. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to annexure no. 7, which is the affidavit of the victim herself in which she admitted the factum of compromise that took place in between the applicant and her. Contention is that though the conduct of the applicant cannot be called morally upright or beyond reproach but totality of the facts and circumstances of the case are such that it does not appear to be a case of rank rape. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 20.4.2018 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Mohammad [email protected], involved in Case Crime No. 150 of 2018, u/ss. 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Handia, District- Allahabad, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
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 :- 31.7.2018
Naresh
