The Allahabad High Court has rejected bail to a man accused of raping a woman with a false promise of marriage and then forcibly converting her.
A single-judge bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Farhan Ahmad (Shanu).
The accused-applicant, involved in Case under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/5 (1) UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020, Police Station Ramgarhtal, District Gorakhpur, applied for bail.
The facts of the case is that the informant is resident of Mohalla Chilmapur Nai Colony, Gorakhpur and in the month of January, 2021 through facebook she came in contact with applicant Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) who demanded the number of the informant and thereafter the conversation between both was started.
It is further alleged that the applicant stated himself he is working as a Tax Inspector in Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur and during conversation, he has made proposal of marriage and after giving assurance he has developed physical relation, however she has conceived pregnancy, but after making pressure abortion was conducted. Thereafter, when the woman wanted to get married, he said he will not accept her until and unless she embraces Islam and began to pressure her to convert.
It is further alleged that on October 1, 2021 in the evening he came with one girl and in front of Heal Park after calling her, he started abusing and used derogatory word. He then threatened her to accept Muslim religion otherwise neither will he marry her nor will he accept her. The complainant said he said she will be murdered, because he is a very influential person. He then snatched her mobile phone and deleted the entire WhatsApp chat. Therefore, the informant is afraid due to his behaviour.
It is further alleged that there is possibility that the applicant will kill her, therefore, the FIR is being lodged.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that Farhan Ahmad is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case only for the purpose of blackmailing, whereas on the basis of allegations the case is the case of a consenting party and nothing else. He has committed no offence.
The counsel further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place at unknown date and time i.e, month of January 2021, whereas the FIR with regard to the same incident has been lodged after 10 months of the alleged incident i.e October 23, 2021 without any plausible explanation for delay in lodging of the FIR.
The main contention of the counsel for the applicant is that it is a consensual relationship. Both parties are major and there is not evidence of abortion, therefore, the chargesheet against the applicant is filed only under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/5 (1) UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020.
In the medical report, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the victim and the doctor has opined suspicion regarding the rape. In the High School Certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is March 12, 1996 by which, the prosecutrix is 25 years and she is major.
In the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she admitted the love affair and relationship with the applicant.
The counsel for the applicant also submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and further stated that the applicant Farhan Ahmad began to make physical relationship with her forcibly.
The counsel said the applicant has never pressured at any point of time on the prosecutrix for conversion of her religion and the entire prosecution story is false and fake, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. The applicant has been languishing in jail since October 27, 2021.
On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that it is a heinous crime against society and has a long effect on the mind of victims. The victim has to go through a serious emotional trauma and physical suffering. Sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of false promise to marry is, and ought to be, an offence of rape under the penal provisions effect on the mind of the victim. There is serious allegation of rape against the applicant with the victim, in these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of counsel for the parties and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused and serious allegation of rape against the applicant, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail,” the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.
“However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year,” the order reads.