Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man In FIR Registered After Two Years Of Alleged Rape Of 55 Years Old Woman
The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail by making interim protection granted to a man from arrest absolute, noting that the FIR alleging rape of a 55-years old woman was registered after 2 years of the alleged incident.
Pertinently, the bench through an order dated January 29, 2024 had granted interim protection from arrest to the man alleged of committing offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale thus observed, “Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2024 made absolute. The petitioner shall not be arrested during investigation and in case the charge-sheet is filed in the case and in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be granted bail by the Court concerned forthwith on the terms and conditions as imposed by the trial Court”.
Advocate Deeksha Saggi appeared for the petitioner and D.A.G. Veer Vikrant Singh appeared for the respondent.
Before the High Court, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner (original applicant) that the FIR was lodged by a prosecutrix, aged about 60 years. Further that there was some money dispute between the applicant and prosecutrix and therefore, the prosecutrix lodged a false report in order to falsely implicate the applicant.
The prosecutrix gave an affidavit that she had lodged the false report, therefore, it was prayed that applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
In the impugned judgment thus it was observed, “Counsel for applicant has relied upon an affidavit purportedly filed by prosecutrix. In the affidavit she has stated that she lodged the false report against applicant. The prosecutrix is aged about 60 years. If the applicant has obtained an affidavit from the prosecutrix, then it is clear that he is trying to win over the witnesses. If the lady of 60 years is not safe in a country, then it is a matter of concern”.
Accordingly, the High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner while noting that “In view of serious allegations of rape levelled by prosecutrix against the applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is involved in winning over the witnesses…”.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Deeksha Saggi, Abhishek Kumar, Rituparn Uniyal, K Anil Singh, B Tyagi, Nayyar Siddiqui, AOR Ram Lal Roy
Respondents: D.A.G. Veer Vikrant Singh, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocates Saurabh Singh, Ashish Rawat
Cause Title: Anil Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click here to read/download the Order
