New Delhi Sept 21(ILNS): The Supreme Court today denied relief to a man accused in a rape of a minor girl victim who later married to another co-accused in the FIR and a child was also born out of the wedlock.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice S.Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari heard the anticipatory bail plea of Dilip Kumar Gupta, accused of Penetrative Sexual Assault of ‘XYZ’ child qua prosecutrix to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail.
Dilip applied for an anticipatory bail application which was earlier dismissed by the Allahabad High court.
‘XYZ’ child was represented by a person named Ramprasad before the Supreme court.
Amit Kumar Senior advocate for Dilip submitted before the bench that Chargesheet has been filed and he was not arrested during the filing of the charge sheet. High Court granted him protection.
(But it is to be noted that there wasn’t any order of interim protection by the High Court)
The bench asked the counsel appearing for Dilip, as why he didn’t surrender before the trial court?
The High court, while dismissing the anticipatory bail had observed that it could be granted only on the grounds where there is some material on record, filed by the prosecution is highly doubtful.
“It is also well settled law that while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court prima facie has to look into the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the role of the accused. The antecedents of the applicant and also the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, apart from other factors and parameters in view of the facts of each and every case,” the court said.
A First Information report under section 342, 506, 376- D IPC and under section ¾ POCSO act was lodged against Dilip. However, in the second statement of child ‘XYZ’ recorded under section 164 of CRPC, she admitted that she had run away with one Arvind, out of her freewill, got married and one child was born out of the wedlock.
The Petitioner has been named in the second statement recorded under section 164 CRPC that he has committed rape with her.
The first statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 CRPC reflects material contradictions as stated by the counsel of Dilip before Allahabad High court.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant is the resident of Mohalla Ashraf Tola Baruni, P. S. Sandila, District Hardoi, and her father is labour while the mother works as a Maid. On June 15, 2017 at about 6.00 pm, Arvind son of Narendra and Taj son of Saleem resident of Ashraf Tola, Baruni Sandila District Hardoi visited the house of the complainant and said that he is looking for house-help and requested her to visit the concerned house.
Thereafter, complainant went to the house of Arvind where applicant along with other accused persons committed rape upon her and made a video recording and threatened her to make the video viral if she discloses the incident to anyone./ILNS/KR/SNG