Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172473
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34979 of 2023
Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Misra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Jitendra Kumar Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2023, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Jhangaha, District-Gorakhpur during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that an FIR dated 27.06.2023 was lodged by first informant/prosecutrix namely Suman Gupta and was registered as Case Crime No. 309 of 2023, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Jhangaha, District-Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Jitendra Kumar Yadav and 3 others namely - Kaushlya Devi, Neelam and Bittu have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR to the effect that named accused i.e. applicant Jitendra Kumar Yadav on the false promise of marriage repeatedly and continuously dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix by committing rape upon her. The applicant is further alleged to have pressurized the prosecutrix to have physical relation with his friends. The FIR further records that ultimately the applicant is said to have resiled from the promise of marriage so made to the prosecutrix.
6. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that applicant is a married man. In spite of the fact that he did not obtain divorce from his first wife, applicant has indulged in adultery/bigamy, which is not permissible under the Hindu Law. The prosecutrix in her statements under Section 161/64 Cr.P.C. has fully supported the prosecution story. Attention of the Court was then invited to the following judgments of the Supreme Court - (i). Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181, (ii). Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1073, (iii). Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108, (iv). Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2022 (Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another) decided on 27.07.2022 and (v). Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.
7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. He, however, invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix, which is on record at page 37 of the paper book and on basis thereof, he submits that since the case of prosecutrix that she came in family way on account of act of applicant was disbelieved by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the entire prosecution story is liable to be disbelieved.
8. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of applicant, accusations made coupled with the fact that it is an undisputed fact that applicant is a married man but without obtaining divorce from his first wife, applicant had indulged in extra marital affair i.e. adultery/bigamy, which is not permissible under the Hindu Law, the prosecution story being fully substantiated by the prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C., therefore, irrespective of the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
9. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
10. It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023
Vinay
