Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17967
Decided on: 09.05.2023
Present:
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Rape – Consenting party -- Misrepresentation -- In statement u/s 164 prosecutrix has categorically stated that they became friends through Facebook; he told her that he is Hindu and on his Facebook profile also he used his surname as “Dixit” and at the inception of the relationship applicant/ accused misrepresented himself and trapped the prosecutrix in his love; had applicant/accused not misrepresented to be of her faith, the prosecutrix would not have given in to the applicant/accused – Anticipatory Bail rejected.
(Para 4-6)
***
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J. (ORAL) –
Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Delay condonation application being IA No.1/2023 stands allowed. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.13 of 2023, under Section 376 of IPC, Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case; the complainant was major when she met the applicant and was a consenting party. He would further submit that the F.I.R. is highly belated as the fact that the applicant belongs to Muslim religion was known to the complainant since long but she did not lodge any report at that point of time and continued their relationship for six years. He would further submit that the applicant was ready to solemnize marriage with the complainant and it was the parents of the complainant who did not agree for their marriage.
5. Learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the application for anticipatory bail and would submit that the investigation is underway and during the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically stated against the applicant; the complainant has stated that they became friends through Facebook; he told her that he is Hindu and on his Facebook profile also he used his surname as “Dixit” and at the inception of the relationship applicant/accused misrepresented himself and trapped the prosecutrix in his love; had applicant/accused not misrepresented to be of her faith, the prosecutrix would not have given in to the applicant/accused.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material available on file, in the opinion of the Court, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage. The Anticipatory Bail Application is, accordingly, rejected.
Application dismissed.
********