Single-judge Justice Om Prakash Tripathi said that the allegation against the accused was serious and he, cannot, therefore, be released on bail.
“There is serious allegation of rape against the applicant with the victim, in these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail,” the Court said.
The order was passed on a bail plea moved by one Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) booked for offences under Sections 376 (Punishment for rape), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2020.
It was the case of the victim (informant) that the applicant-accused has committed rape on her by establishing physical relations on the pretext of a false promise to marriage.
He later pressured her to convert to Islam threatening that he will not marry her unless she coverts.
As a result, due to the threat to her life, the victim lodged a first information report (FIR) against the applicant.
The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and this was a case of consensual relationship since both the applicant and the victim were adults. He further contended that as per medical report, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the victim, and the doctor had not govern any opinion about rape.
Moreover, the applicant stated that he had never pressured the victim at any point of time to convert to Islam and the entire prosecution story was false and fake.
The counsel appearing for the State, however, submitted that sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of false promise of marriage will attract the offence of rape.
“It is a heinous crime against a society and has a long effect on the mind of victims. The victim has to go through a serious emotional trauma and physical suffering. Sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of false promise to marry is, and ought to be an offence of rape under the penal provisions effect on the mind of the victim,” the State counsel contended.
The High Court after taking into account the facts and circumstaces refused to grant bail to the applicant-accused.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused and serious allegation of rape against the applicant, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail,” the order stated.
The Court, however, directed the trial court to conclude the trial in the case expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year.
Advocates Amit Kumar Singh and Satyendra Narayan Singh appeared for the applicant.
Source: Barandbench
