Randhir Singh vs State of U.P.

Kalimullah Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant. Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. N.C.R. u/s 498. I.P.C. was registered with the police of police station Baldeo, district Mathura on the application made by informant. Mohan Singh against accused Tej Pal @ Akka, Randhir Singh (applicant) and Raju. The allegation made in the said N.C.R. is that the aforesaid three accused persons have enticed away his wife who has three issues from him and detained her with criminal intent that she may have illicit intercourse with them and concealed/detained her with that intent for about five days. Thereafter, somehow or the other, she managed to escape and reached to her husband''s house, to whom, she narrated the aforesaid incident including the fact of committing rape upon her by the named accused persons. Thereafter, an application u/s 155(2), Cr. P.C. was made by the husband of the victim by improving the case as to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 506. I.P.C. Learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the Officer In-charge of the police station concerned to register and investigate the case. Accordingly, the case was registered under Sections 342, 364, 376, 392 and 506, I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was interrogated u/s 161, Cr. P.C. and was examined u/s 164, Cr. P.C. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against all the three accused persons, named in the N.C.R. under Sections 342, 364, 376, 392 and 506. I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent. He has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the prosecution story is unnatural and improbable inasmuch as the two real brothers including the applicant have been named in this case as accused and they have been alleged to commit rape upon the prosecutrix simultaneously one by one. He has further submitted that there is an inordinate delay of two days in lodging the N.C.R. According to the prosecution, prosecutrix returned on 8.7.2012 and application u/s 155(2), Cr. P.C. was made by the complainant on 12.7.2012. He has further submitted that there is a material contradiction on the point of mode and manner of kidnapping or enticing away the prosecutrix by the accused persons inter-se in the N.C.R. in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 161. Cr. P.C. and in her statement recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. In the N.C.R. it has been stated that the wife of the complainant was enticed away from his house by the accused persons. In her statement recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C. she stated that accused persons asked her to follow them on the pretext that her husband had met an accident and, therefore, prosecutrix suo motu followed them while in her statement recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. she told that on the date and time of the incident, she was forcibly put in a vehicle by miscreants who took her to Saidabad on pistol point. In the application made u/s 155(2), Cr. P.C. it was stated that prosecutrix was recovered by the police on 8.7.2012 at 12.30 hours from the possession of the accused persons including the applicant but police says that prosecutrix was not recovered by the police from the possession of the accused persons rather prosecutrix suo motu returned to her house. Lastly, he argued that admittedly N.C.R. was registered u/s 498, I.P.C. and as per the provision contained in Section 198, Cr. P.C. no court shall take cognizance except on the complaint for the offence alleged which is punishable u/s 498, I.P.C. As regards the improvement made to aggravate the offence bringing it within the purview of Sections 363, 376 and 506, I.P.C. he argued that such application discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, therefore, Section 155 (2), Cr. P.C. was not attracted rather the application should have been made u/s 156 (3), Cr. P.C., therefore, the order passed for registration and investigation of the case is bad in law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail. There appears substance In the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case entitles the applicant to bail. Application for bail is, therefore, allowed.

Let applicant, Randhir Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 371 of 2012, under Sections 342, 364, 376, 392 and 506, I.P.C., Police Station Baldeo, District Mathura, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.