Jarif vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This bail application has been filed by the applicant Jarif with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 362 of 2007 under Sections 376, 354, 511 and 120B, I.P.C. P.S. Badaut district Baghpat.

The facts of the case in brief are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Tahir Hussain on 21.6.2007 at 3.50 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 21.6.2007 at about 12 O'' clock, alleging therein that the applicant being Pradhan of the Village and co-accused Ehsan alias Bora brought the prosecutrix Rizwana, Km. Amna and the first informant from Barnawa to Baghpat in vehicle No. D.L. 2CG-3742 at the pretext that Rs. 10,000 each shall be given to them by the Government for the purpose of marriage. At about 12 O''clock on 21.6.2007, the vehicle was stopped on the road and the first informant was asked to wait on the road and both the girls were taken by patwari for signing some papers. After sometimes Km. Amna, younger daughter of the first informant, came to the first informant and informed that the applicant was committing rape with Km. Rizwana. She was also molested by Ehsan and the landlord of the house but successfully she escaped away. The first informant alongwith Km. Amna came at the place of occurrence and found the prosecutrix in an unnerved condition, she told that rape was committed by the applicant.

According to the medical examination report, no mark of injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix and no definite opinion about rape could be given.

Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Nisaruddin and Sri S. Alim Shah, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a respectable person. He is an elected Pradhan of the village. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to the ill will of the first informant. The prosecutrix and her sister Amna are married women. No injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. No definite opinion about rape could be given even no spermatozoa was found on the vaginal smears. The prosecution story is fully concocted, highly improbable and such incident cannot be committed in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case but prior to the alleged incident, he was falsely implicated in some cases also upto the year 1996.

In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicant is a criminal. He was involved in six criminal cases, in which three cases were of murder, two cases were of attempt to murder and one case was of theft, remaining case was of kidnapping in order to commit murder. Due to the act done by the applicant a panic was created in the locality. It was published in the local newspapers. There is no reason of false implication of the applicant. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant and from a perusal of the record, it appears that the F.I.R. of this case has been promptly lodged. There is specific allegation of committing rape against the applicant and the applicant is having criminal antecedent, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and to ensure the fair trial the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.