Monday, November 4, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Allahabad High Court grants anticipatory bail to Gorakhpur policemen accused of assaulting 16-year-old girl

The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Inspector Atul Kumar Rai and other police personnel of Pipraich police station in Gorakhpur.

A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc anticipatory bail application filed by Atul Kumar Rai and Another.

The bail application under Section 438 CrPC has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case under Sections 323, 342 and 506 IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

An FIR was registered on 25.6.2022, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur on a complaint of Indrawati Devi alleging that when her daughter, aged around 16 years, was cleaning the house, some dispute regarding parking the motorcycle of Vipin, a neighbour, took place, on which Vipin, his wife Nirmala Devi, his son Shashi and daughter Ragini gave filthiest abuses to the complainant’s daughter and assaulted her by kicks and fists. On her raising alarm, the complainant and other villagers reached there and they could save the daughter of the complainant. It was said that the complainant was a widow and hapless person.

The subject matter of the application is FIR registered under Sections 342, 323, and 506 IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Pipraich, District Gorkhpur against the accused-applicants, who were posted as Sub-Inspector and Constable in the Police Station Pipraich.

In the said FIR, it has been alleged that in respect of the incident, for which FIR was registered on the complaint of Indrawati Devi, father of the complainant i.e Vipin Kumar, had gone to the police station to give a complaint. As soon as Vipin Kumar reached the police station, he was made to sit at the police station. Despite the request made by the father of the complainant and his father for registering the FIR against Vishal Chaudhary, nothing was done.

It was further alleged that the accused-applicant Atul Kumar Rai, who was posted as Sub-Inspector, scolded the father of the complainant. When the complainant and his father reached to the accused-applicant Akash Kumar, who was posted as Constable, Akash Kumar slapped the complainant and told him that he was involved in the incident of assaulting the daughter of Indrawati.

The complainant showed his mobile phone to the accused-applicant Akash Kumar to say that he was not present when the alleged incident took place. Thereafter, accused-applicant Akash Kumar snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and deleted the audio recording in regard to talk of the accused- applicant Akash Kumar with the complainant. Accused-applicant Atul Kumar Rai started thrashing the father of the complainant. Thereafter, accused-applicant Akash Kumar took the complainant to a little away and threatened him to send to jail.

The accused- applicant Akash Kumar told the complainant that if he would give Rs 20,000, then he would not be sent to jail, otherwise, he would be sent to jail. The complainant went to arrange Rs 20,000 and after taking loan from some person, he came back to the police station.

It was alleged that at that one Santosh Kumar was present at the police station. The said Santosh Kumar first spoke to the accused- applicant Atul Kumar Rai and, thereafter, told the complainant that accused-applicant Atul Kumar Rai was demanding Rs 25,000. The complainant again went to the accused-applicant Atul Kuamr Rai, who told the complainant that he would not accept less than Rs 25,000. Thereafter, the complainant made arrangement of Rs 5,000 more and he gave Rs 25,000 to the accused-applicant Atul Kumar Rai.

It is also said that recording of giving bribe amount of Rs 25,000 to accused-applicant Atul Kumar Rai was present in the mobile phone of the complainant.

It is further said that despite accepting Rs 25,000, no action was take against Vishal Chaudhry, but action was taken only against the complainant and his family members.

The counsel for the accused-applicants submitted that the alleged recording and accepting the bribe amount is neither here nor there. The same has not been recovered by the Investigating Officer till date.

He further submitted that if the accused-applicants would have accepted the bribe amount of Rs 25,000, they would have taken action against Vishal Chaudhary, for which the bribe amount was demanded.

He also submitted that since the action was taken against the father of the complainant and other co-accused for assaulting a 16-year-old girl, for which FIR was registered under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the case against the accused-applicants appears to be a concocted store of false implication.

On the other hand, PK Bharadwaj, AGA, is not in a position to inform as to whether the chargesheet has been filed or whether the video recording was recovered from the complainant.

“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the accused-applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail,” the Court observed while allowing the anticipatory bail application.

The Court ordered,

The accused-applicants are directed to appear before the trial Court concerned within 10 days from today and if they do so, they shall be released on filing their furnishing a personal bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, if already not filed, on the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice, and other conditions, which may be desirable by the trial Court:-

(i) That the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(iii) That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

(iv) Such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

spot_img

News Update