Allahabad High Court
Mohit Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 9 May, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1104 of 2018
Appellant :- Mohit Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Nisar Uddin
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed on behalf of appellant Mohit Sharma against the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur in Case Crime No.1346 of 2017, u/s 376(I) of I.P.C., Section-3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Hapur Kotwali, District-Hapur, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
Perusal of record shows that notice to the opposite party no.2 has already been issued and earlier on two occasions the case was listed but neither the opposite party no.2 nor any counsel on his behalf had turned up. Today also, when the case was taken up, the situation remains the same and therefore, this Court, keeping in view the heavy pendency of cases in the court, does not feel inclined to linger on the matter any further and deems it proper to decide the case on merits on the basis of record taking the assistance of learned A.G.A.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.
Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the victim was a major girl of about 18 years and she was a consenting party in the physical relationship between her and the accused-appellant and had gone on her own volition along with the appellant, and therefore, no case of rape is made out and the applicant should therefore be released on bail and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal of the appellant and has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of of the F.I.R., the statement of the victim given before the Investigating Officer and also the statement given by the victim before the Magistrate. Submission is that overall reading of the record indicates that the allegation made by the victim appears to be that she was acquainted with the appellant and had gone along with him but then she was subjected to carnal intercourse by the appellant against her will and without her consent. The more incriminating allegation is that the act of coitus was videographed by the appellant and then he started blackmailing the victim on the basis of that video and started compelling the victim to cough out money under the fear of making the video viral. The victim under these coercive circumstances started taking out money somehow from her house and the A.T.M. and started giving it to the appellant from time to time. The money was extorted from her in such manner and to the extent that she was completely squeezed and drained out of purse. The circumstances were such that at some stage the blackmailing attempt proved to be the last straw on camel's back and then finding herself completely pushed to the wall she decided to resort to the administrative authorities and make a report in that regard. Submission of learned A.G.A. is that this kind of conduct is highly reprehensible and it cannot be said to be a case of simple love affair. Had the girl been a consenting willful party in the act of coitus and if there was no element of deceit involved in the whole affair, then there was absolutely no occasion for the appellant to have videographed the sexual activity and there was absolutely no reason for him to blackmail her in order to cough out money. All these circumstances in totality indicate that all the activities of the accused-appellant were malicious and she was deceitfully raped from time to time and a lot of money was extorted out of her under pressure of coercive blackmail, and there is no reason to take a liberal view in the matter in favour of such unscrupulous accused.
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 appellant has not made out a case for bail.
The prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected and accordingly the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2018
M. Kumar
