The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of a rape and kidnapping accused in a case registered three years ago in Nawabganj police station area. Earlier, the applicant, Mukhtar Ahmad, had been granted bail by this court which was then cancelled by the Supreme Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by Mukhtar Ahmad. The bail application has been filed by the applicant in the present case under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, police station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The applicant was granted bail by the Court order dated February 13, 2020. The said bail was challenged before the Apex Court and the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled by the Apex Court order dated September 10, 2020 and the applicant was directed to surrender before the trial court. Now, the second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail.
The counsel for the applicant argued, “The applicant has already surrendered before the trial court. It was submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case.”
The applicant is not named in the FIR and during investigation, one eye-witness, namely, Noman, has alleged that applicant was sitting in the four wheeler, when Mohd Sajid @ Sonu, Somain and Irshad have alighted from the vehicle and abducted the victim girl but there is long and undue delay in recording the statement of said witness Noman and it appears that the said witness was introduced just to create corroborative evidence, the court noted.
The counsel further submitted that statement of concerned doctor, who has examined the victim, has already been recorded before the trial court and in her statement she has inter alia stated that radiological age of victim girl was 19 years and at the time of her medical examination, she was found pregnant and there were no mark of injury on her body.
It was also submitted that in the FIR, one Alok Kumar Pandey and Himanshu alias Nanke Pandey were also named but during investigation, their involvement was found false and thus the veracity of the version of alleged eye witnesses is highly doubtful.
“The victim has made a statement before the Magistrate as she was tutored by the first informant whereas the applicant was not named in FIR or in the statement of victim, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. respondents have election related enmity with applicant and applicant has been falsely implicated due to that reason,” the counsel added.
Additional Government Advocate as well as Counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the bail granted to the applicant by the Court order dated February 13, 2020 has already been cancelled by the Apex Court with the observation that considering the nature of allegations, the High Court was not justified in extending the facility of bail to the applicant.
It was further submitted that statements of all the material witnesses have already been recorded and now the case is at the stage of recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
“It is apparent from record that applicant was granted bail by the Court order dated February 13, 2020, but the said bail has already been cancelled by the Apex Court order dated September 10, 2020. After considering submissions of counsel for the parties, looking into the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, severity of punishment and considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out,” the bench observed.