How a 17 year old (Virgin ? ) was RAPED for 1 YEAR! OMG is India a country of rapists? Allahabad HC bail

A woman claims she was raped by a man for almost 1 year. The man contends that she was a willing live-in and has suddenly changed her view as he did NOT marry her ( he was already married !! ) Finally the guy gets bail from the Hon HC ! Such cases will continue further for ages before the woman (takes money ? ) and compromises.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. – 22

Case :- BAIL No. – 10443 of 2015

Applicant :- Rajeev Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Shanker Shukla,Illegible
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Mahendra Dayal,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

The applicant Rajeev Shukla has sought bail in Case Crime No. 602 of 2015, under Section 376 IPC, relating to Police Station Ghzipur, District Lucknow.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix lived with the applicant as his wife for more than a year and also established physical relation with him.? The only allegation against him is that since the applicant had assured the prosecutrix to marry her, as such she surrendered herself before him.? However, when she came to know that the applicant? was already married and he refused to marry her, she lodged an FIR. The statement of the mother of the victim as well as the victim herself, clearly indicates that she was a consenting? party and lived with the applicant for considerable period of time and established physical relations.?? It is not disputed that for a period of one year no complaint was made by the prosecutrix? to any one and the physical relations were established to the knowledge of the family member of the prosecutrix. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement before the Magistrate has stated that she was? 17 years of age when the applicant? firstly established physical relation with the prosecutrix? and he had assured her? to marry but after the period of one year, he refused to perform the marriage.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submission made on their behalf but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant named above involved in the above noted case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) 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. is issued and 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 law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

Order Date :- 2.5.2016

Muk

source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s