Allegations Of Sexual Assault On Rise; Inordinate Delay In Lodging FIR To Be Considered At The Stage Of Bail: Allahabad HC

Observing that false implication in sexual offences is on a rise, the Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to two men accused of committing gang rape against a married woman while stressing that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has to be considered at the time of adjudicating bail plea.

The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further added that much water has flown down the Ganges since the Apex Court's opined in a 1983 case (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat) that no girl would foist a false case of sexual assault against any person to avoid being maligned in the non-permissive Indian society.

"Indian society has undergone a complete change during the last 40 years and now it is more often observed that false implication in sexual offences is on a rise" : #AllahabadHighCourt pic.twitter.com/nZUkuv5GUo

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 23, 2023

The case in brief

The accused argued before the Court that the victim, informant, and the applicants were working in the same organization run in the name of ‘Janeu Kranti Abhiyan’. In fact, the victim was the National President of the organisation and her husband/informant was the treasurer in it.

The allegations against the accused are that they raped the alleged victim on July 1, 2019, in Varanasi in her room. However, the alleged victim informed her husband (informant) about the incident only on August 3, 2019, when she reached Meerut (from Varanasi).

Thereafter, the application containing the allegations was moved by the informant at the police station on August 5, 2019, and a case was registered under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 I.P.C.

The said FIR was sent to be investigated by the Varanasi police on a letter sent by S.S.P., Meerut as the matter fell within the jurisdiction of District Varanasi. The F.I.R. was lodged on September 9, 2019. The accused were arrested in connection with the case in Feb-March 2020 and hence, they moved the instant plea seeking bail in the case.

Arguments advanced before the Court

The accused/applicant argued before the Court that they have been falsely implicated in the case as they had enquired about the illegal activities being undertaken by the victim and other activists of the Ashram. 

It was submitted that the prosecution had created additional evidence by introducing new witnesses and filed their affidavits before S.S.P., Meerut, which is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and are not admissible in law.

Importantly, the applicant further submitted that FIR was lodged against the applicant soon after the applicant-Chandan Kumar posted several messages in a WhatsApp group relating to the illegal activities of the founder of the organization (Godman Chandra Mohan). It was also stated that the alleged eyewitness of the incident is also a member of the organization.

It was lastly submitted that everybody carries mobile and the victim could have narrated the story to her husband on the mobile itself and could have got the FIR lodged at the Varanasi itself through Ankit or herself and her act of going to Meerut to lodge the FIR, that too after an inordinate delay, speaks volume of the malicious intent of the informant to implicate the applicants at the behest of godman Chandra Mohan.

On the other hand, the counsel for the state argued that the applicants have committed the gruesome act of gangrape with the victim and it is not possible in Indian society for a woman to foist false allegation of rape. 

It was also argued that delay caused in lodging the FIR is but natural as the victim was under acute pressure due to the Indian values to not to reveal the said act committed with her and that she had been ravished out of the lust by the applicants as she was found alone in her room. It was also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the statement of the victim needs no corroboration and has to be relied upon.

Taking into account the submissions made before it, the Court was not persuaded to accept the submissions of the state and hence, it went ahead to grant bail to the applicants considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact regarding inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR by the informant and also the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicants: Pulak Ganguly, Virendra Kumar Mishra, Sudhir Mehrotra

Counsel for Opposite Parties: AGA V.K.S. Parmar, Shivam Yadav, Aditya Yadav

Case title - Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 74

Click Here To Read/Download Order