Tarun Bandhu vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is allegation against the present applicant is that prosecutrix Priti was kidnapped by present applicant on 6112006 at about 8 9 a.m. through Santro Car No. D.L.4 CAG 5227. Applicant is the cousin (Mausera Bhai). Thereafter, she was allegedly recovered from the possession of the present applicant on 72 2007 from Delhi. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. by I.O. and concerned Magistrate wherein she has stated that present applicant used to commit the offence of rape with her without her consent. It is further contended that she lived with the applicant for about five months in Delhi. She was found aged about 20 years. No injury was found on her person as well as on her private parts.

It is further contended that she did not make any complain in Delhi within five months to any other persons. This is not the case that she was used to sexual intercourse by applicant on the point of any weapon. She may be the consenting party. It is further contended that marriage certificate was issued by Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal Mandi Jamuna Bazar Delhi on 7112006 while the application was earlier moved before date of alleged incident of kidnapping. Therefore, both were living as husband and wife.

Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that applicant is the Mausera Bhai of the prosecutrix. She was kidnapped by him alongwith two others. He committed rape with her without her consent for about five months and she was not allowed to go anywhere except room. Therefore, she did not make any complain to any person.

After considering submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, it appears that prosecutrix was aged about 20 years at the time of alleged occurrence. No any injury was found on her person as well as on her private parts. She lived with the applicant at Delhi for about five months. Although he is the Mausera Bhai of the prosecutrix, one application was moved by prosecutrix on 8112006 to S.S.P. Meerut and Circle Officer Shastri Nagar, Meerut, its copy is on record as Annexure No. 4, which reveals that information regarding marriage of the both persons were given to S.S.P. Meerut, Circle Officer, Shastri Nagar Meerut. Marriage Certificate has also been filed.

It is worthwhile to mention here that offence of kidnapping had allegedly taken place on 6112006 and marriage certificate was prepared on 20102006 and it was registered on 7112006. Names of father, brother and any relative of the prosecutrix have not been mentioned in the marriage certificate. It is come in my knowledge that in such type of cases Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal Mandi Jamuna Bazar Delhi and other agencies of Arya Samaj is/are issuing marriage certificate in absence of parents and relatives of the prosecutrix victim. Therefore, this type of agencies are giving incentive to the persons for the offence of kidnapping and rape, in such circumstances, such agencies should be involved in the case for the purpose of criminal conspiracy.

7.After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of both the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, his bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Tarun Bandhu involved in case crime No. 45 of 2007, under Sections 363,366,376 I.P.C., P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.