ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DINESH KUMAR @ DINESH PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BAIL/30399/2022
BAIL - SECTION 376(2)(I) IPC - REJECTION - SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE - VICTIM MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED - WITNESS STATEMENT - NO GROUNDS FOR BAIL
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested and charged under Section 376(2)(I) IPC for allegedly raping a mentally and physically challenged victim. The applicant filed a bail application, arguing that the FIR was based on false allegations and that he was innocent.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the bail application, holding that the seriousness of the offence, the victim's vulnerability, and the presence of a witness statement implicating the applicant did not provide sufficient grounds for bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail in a case of alleged rape of a mentally and physically challenged victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the presence of a witness statement implicating the applicant in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30399
of 2022
Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Prasad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushlendra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard Sri Kaushlendra, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the entire record.
The instant application for bail has been moved on
behalf of the applicant, Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh
Prasad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in
F.I.R./Case Crime No.71 of 2022, under Sections 376(2)
(I) I.P.C., Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj, during
pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the first information report is based on false and
fabricated facts. The accused/applicant is innocent who
has been falsely implicated in this case.
His further submission is that the alleged date of
incident being festival of Holi, it was not possible for
accused/ applicant to have escorted the victim to the
alleged place of occurrence in order to commit rape.
His next submission is that the victim is mentally and
physically challenged, therefore, nothing against the
applicant can also be deciphered from her statement.
His further submission is that it is alleged that the
applicant has taken the victim to a public place like
shop. However, strangely, no public witness saw the
applicant taking away the victim or committing rape
upon her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted
that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since
18.03.2022 who has no previous criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that
the accused/ applicant has committed a heinous
offence of committing rape upon the victim who is
mentally and physically challenged. The victim was not
able to defend herself. Therefore, having regard to the
seriousness nature of offence, the applicant does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record,
it transpires that a first information report came to be
lodged by the first informant, the father of the victim.
The victim is sated to be mentally and physically
challenged. It also appears that a witness, Mahendra
Kumar, who, in his statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., has stated to have seen the applicant
committing rape upon the victim who escape from the
place of occurrence. There is nothing on record to
suggest that this witness has any reason or motive to
falsely implicate the applicant.
Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of
this case, seriousness of offence, evidence regarding
the complicity of applicant and having regard to the fact
that the victim is stated to be mentally and physically
challenged and this incident has been witnessed by a
witness, Mahendra Kumar while the accused/ applicant
was committing rape upon the victim, this Court, at this
stage, does not find any ground to enlarge the applicant
on bail.
Accordingly, the instant applicant for bail is rejected.
However, keeping in view the fact that the applicant is
languishing in jail since 18.02.2022, the learned trial
court concerned is directed to proceed with the trial and
conclude the same expeditiously and preferably within
a period of one year from the date of production of
certified copy of this order, without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there
is no other legal impediment.
S.S.P./S.P. and Joint Director Prosecution of the district
concerned are directed to ensure that witnesses are
present on the date fixed so that their testimonies may
be recorded without there being any hindrance.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the
S.S.P/S.P. a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.