- (1.) Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate appeared for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) Perused the record. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the incident is said to have taken place on 26.4.2015 at about 1.00 A.M. in the night while the First Information Report of the case is said to have been registered on 28.4.2015 at 10.30 P.M. Further submission is that though in the F.I.R. the claim of prosecutrix is that she had known the applicant from before the incident and she was well acquainted with him but this claim of the prosecutrix is not only false but is also in complete contradiction of her statement given before the Investigating Officer. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix given before the Investigating Officer in which she has categorically stated that she did not know the applicant as to who he was and where did he belong to. It was further stated by the prosecutrix that she would identify the accused, if he was brought before her. It is further submitted by the counsel that even in the statement given before the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. it was stated by the prosecutrix that she did not know the name of the applicant and had only seen him some times back. Contention is that these statements are sufficient to indicate that if at all any such incident had taken place as has been alleged then the prosecutrix was marking time to find out as to who the real accused was and what was the identity of him. It is further contended that it was because of the lack of information about the culprit that the matter remained within the realm of conjectures and that is why the first information report of the case was not lodged for two days and could be lodged only on 28.4.2015 in the night. Submission is that in this background it is very clear that the claim of the prosecutrix that it is the applicant who committed the offence is an information based on hearsay, and therefore, it lacks not only admissibility but also looses much of its credibility and it may be very hazardous to act upon the same. Further submission is that the statement of the prosecutrix would also show that it has been claimed by her that while the accused raped her it was in the same process when she was in her house, that the accused himself had disclosed his own identity telling that he was Babu and he was the son of Chairman. Contention is that this claim is highly improbable as it is highly unnatural to imagine that a culprit instead of suppressing his identity would take care to disclose the same and would cry it aloud and would make the victim aware of his whereabouts, parentage and name etc. Further submission is that this is clearly an attempt of the prosecution to somehow fix the identity of the applicant. It is further submitted that actually the whole false implication is at the instance of the rivals of applicant's father who were bent upon to somehow malign his image and that is why the whole prosecution case has been concocted. It is also pointed out that the applicant has never been subjected to any test identification parade which was the only legal way to connect the applicant with the crime. The delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has also been emphasized by the counsel and submission is that all the possibilities of embellishment, improvements and concert are very much there. Contention is that the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. is not well explained and is wholly inadequate and the only reason for the delay was that there was no material to fix the identity of the actual offender. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.5.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. ;