Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

OVERVIEW 

The case of Alok Bajpai v. State of UP saw the Hon’ble High Court granting bail to Alok Bajpai, the 22 year old rape accused, for having committed rape on a 17 year student of the D.N.M. Institute of Engineering owing to inconsistencies in her statement, which proved to the Court that the victim had consented to the sexual relations with the accused prior to such incident for which such complaint had been lodged. The victim had also stated that the earlier incidents of intercourse were not only consensual, but arose from a romantic affair between them and she was in a state to fully comprehend the nature of the affair, and the consequences of the intercourse.

The order was delivered by a single-judge Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, who, considering the arguments of both sides granted bail to the accused, subject to certain conditions. 

BACKGROUND

The FIR in relation to the instant incident was lodged in Police Station Madiaon, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, on the 11th of September. The complaint stated that the accused was in possession of obscene photographs of the victim, owing to which he telephonically blackmailed her to meet him. Then he took her to some room on a bike and allegedly committed rape on her from where she was “recovered” in the middle of the night. These were the statements of the victim as had been recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of the CrPC.

In the statement of the complainant recorded under the provisions of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the father of the victim submitted that the accused and his daughter were involved in an affair, and that they had had consensual sexual relations at least 4 to 5 times before the instant incident took place.

FURTHER DETAILS

The counsel for the applicant strongly claimed that the accused had been implicated falsely, and that there was no evidence of the rape accused being in possession of any obscene photographs. On seizure of the phone of the accused, a total of three photographs of the victim had been found, which were not obscene even in the opinion of the police.

Also, the statement under Section 161 did not record the occurrence of any sexual activity on the day of the occurrence of the alleged rape.

The Court recorded thus, “It appears that the applicant and prosecutrix were having an affair and the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC has admitted that the prosecutrix as well as the applicant had indulged in consensual sexual activity for 4-5 times prior to the impugned incident.”

“The age of the prosecutrix is about 17 years and having regard to the fact that she was studying in D.N.M. Institute of Engineering, it could not be ruled out that she was possessing sufficient knowledge and was in a position to fully understand the nature and consequences of sexual activity,” the Court observed.

The Court further took into account the previous record of the 22 year old accused who had never been convicted of any offence, and had been in custody of the police since the 12th of September, 2020, and the matter was still pending trial.

CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble Court granted bail to the applicant who had been charged with offences under the provisions of Sections 363 (punishment for kidnapping) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 3 and 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act, 2012, on the following conditions:

(i) “The applicant shall not attempt to make any contact either with the prosecutrix or with the informant. 

(ii) The applicant would remain present before the trial court on all dates fixed and if in any eventuality, he is not in a position to attend the trial court, he will instruct his Counsel to do all needful required for the early disposal of the case and shall file an undertaking before the trial court that he will not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses will be present.

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 

(iv) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 

(v) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.”


DO YOU AGREE WITH THE GRANT OF THE BAIL TO THE APPLICANT? DO LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!
 

"Loved reading this piece by Chandrani Mitra?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Click here to join our Telegram group.


Tags :
profile picture

Chandrani Mitra Online
17 April 2021    47  Report



Comments




img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query