Yaseen @ Bhataula vs State of U. P.

Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the '' State and perused the record.

Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

This bail application has been presented on behalf of the applicant-Yaseen alias Bhataula, who is involved in Case Crime No. 474 of 2011, under Sections 147, 364, 323, 342, 376, 504 and 506. I.P.C., Police Station Khurja City, -District-Buulandshahr.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix-Km. Arshi alias Farha is a major girl, aged about 20 years and she has married with Abid Bhataula, brother of the applicant, of her own sweet will and there is a Nikahnama and marriage deed regarding solemnization of marriage in Delhi of Abid Bhataula with the prosecutrix Km. Arshi alias Farha. It was then urged that the medical examination report of the prosecutrix does not support the allegations made in the F.I.R. and in her statements recorded under Sections 161, Cr. P.C. and 164, Cr. P.C. It was further submitted that when the prosecutrix had left her house on 25.10.2010 at 5 p.m. in the evening, thereafter she did not return to her house, then no F.I.R. and even a missing report was also not lodged by the parents of the prosecutrix and it was after 7 months when the prosecutrix had returned on her own, then the present F.I.R. by concocting a false allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons has been lodged by the prosecutrix under the influence of her parents. It was further submitted that the statement given by the prosecutrix under Sections 161, Cr. P.C. and 164, Cr. P.C. cannot be placed reliance as the said statements have been given by her under the due influence of her parents and relatives. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that when the prosecutrix and her husband Abid Bhataula were living in Delhi after getting married then on 3.5.2011 some persons in police uniform had taken her forcibly from their house and further misbehaved with the mother and sister of the applicant. The Information is said to have been given to the S.H.O. at Police Station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and police officers through Fax by the applicant.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer and submitted that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161, Cr. P.C. and 164, Cr. P.C., specific allegation of rape has been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The prosecutrix has also not admitted about the factum of her marriage in her statement and stated that the applicant alongwith other accused persons committed gang rape on her for several days and had also taken blue film of her, due to which she could not dare to speak or complaint against them.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 161, Cr. P.C. as well as u/s 164, Cr. P.C. specific allegation of rape has been levelled against the applicant alongwith the other co-accused persons and further the accused persons had threatened the prosecutrix and had taken her signature on some blank and printed papers and moreover blue films of the prosecutrix was also taken by the accused persons. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that the the prayer for bail of the applicant is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected at this stage.