The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act, 2020 who has been accused of committing rape upon the victim in a room of a hotel. A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Sonu Rajpoot, alias Zubair.
The bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure had been filed by the applicant, Sonu Rajpoot, alias Zubair, seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in connection with the Case u/s 376, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 3/5 U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act, registered at Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that although in the text of the FIR the victim who is the first informant herself has not disclosed her age but she has stated that she is a working person.
Counsel for the Applicant said that in the Chik FIR, her year of birth has been mentioned as 1995 which goes to show that she is major. It is further said that the occurrence of the present case is said to have taken place on November 28, 2020 whereas the FIR has been registered on December 29, 2020 which is after a delay of more than a month and the same is unexplained.
It is also said that the victim on her own free will traveled with the applicant as is evident from the FIR itself as both of them had love affair and used to spend time together but then she states that on the day of occurrence the applicant established physical relationship against her wishes.
Counsel for the applicant argued that even thereafter the applicant remained silent for more than a month then lodged the FIR. It is further argued that although the medical examination of the victim was conducted on January 4, 2021, and as such the doctor has opined that there are no signs of use of force. It appears that there was some dispute between the applicant and the girl relating to caste and as such their relationship could not materialize as the victim states that initially she did not know that the applicant was a Muslim but when she saw his name written in the register of the hotel where she had gone with the applicant and physical relation was established between them as Zubair, S/o Chand then she came to know that he was a Muslim and then a dispute arose between them. The victim is a major girl and working and as such was very well aware of worldly affairs.
It is further argued that the first informant was a consenting party with the applicant and used to spend time with him out of her own volition. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and in jail since January 4, 2021.
A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is allegation that he committed rape upon her in a room of a hotel.
“After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the victim/first informant is a major girl. The applicant and the first informant/victim were in a relationship for a long and she used to spend time with the applicant and used to travel with him and went to a room of a hotel on her own sweet-will”, the Court observed.
“Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence, 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”, the Court said.
The Court has directed that the applicant-Sonu Rajpoot alias Zubair be released on bail in the case of crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82. Cr.P.C. may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with the law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge, and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
Also read: Supreme Court stays Delhi HC order that said IGST on oxygen concentrators was ‘unconstitutional’
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavors and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
“The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison”, the Court ordered.
Source: ILNS