Rape accused denied bail for false promise to marry and forcing to convert religion:Allahabad High Court
The case involves a man to have raped on the false promise to marry and thereafter, coerced the victim to convert her religion otherwise,he would not marry her.This case was decided by a single judge bench of Allahabad High Court consisting of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi in the matter of Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) v. State Of UP CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 54154 of 2021 decided on 5.1.2022. The facts of this case are the victim and the applicant met through facebook and later exchanged their numbers and started to converse.During such conversations, the applicant gave the victim assurance of marriage and engaged in physical relation with her as result of which she became pregnant.She was naturally forced by the applicant to undergo abortion. After the abortion, the applicant was reluctant to marry her unless she converts her religion and accepts Islam.Further, the applicant also came up to the victim, abused and threatened to kill her if she does not accept Islam as he is a very influential person.The victim filed FIR against the applicant under sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/5 (1) U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020. The counsel on behalf of the applicant contended that though there was a relationship between them, there was no rape as they had a consensual relationship as both of them were major.The medical report of ther victim did not show any evidence of abortion or injury. The applicant never pressurized the victim for conversion.The applicant is wrongly suffering in jail and prosecution has falsely implicated his client. The counsel on behalf of the victim contended  that “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.” The victim had to undergo emotional trauma and physical suffering due to the actions of the applicant. It is a heinous crime against society which has long lasting effect over mind of victims. The Allahad High Court held that without commenting on the merits of the case, it is not a fit case for grant of bail and rejected the bail application keeping in view the complexity of the case and the gravity of the charges involved against the applicant.
Court No. 73 Case : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 54154 Applicant : Farhan AhmadU.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2020 Police Station Ramgarhtal District Gorakhpur applied for bail. The brief 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 has come in the touch of present applicant Farhan Ahmad 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 at the post of Tax Inspector in Nagar Nigam Gorakthpur 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 and thereafter when the informant has stated to get marry then he was tolerating the matter and stated that until and unless she will not accept Islam Religion he will not marry to her and he started pressure to change her Religion. It is further alleged that on 01.10.2021 in the evening he came with one girl and in front of Heal Park after calling her he started abusing and use derogatory word and threatened to accept Muslim Religion otherwise neither he will marry to her nor he will accept to her and she will be murdered because he is very influential person and thereafter after taking her mobile he has deleted entire whatsapp chat therefore the informant is afraid due to his behavior because the parents of the informant died causally It is further alleged that there is possibility that the present applicant will commit murder of her therefore the present first information report is being lodged Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only for the purpose of blackmailing whereas on the basis of allegations the present case is the case of consenting party and nothing else. He has committed no offence. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 First Information Report with regard to the same incident has been lodged after 10 months of the alleged incident i.e. 23.10.2021 without any plausible explanation for delay in lodging of the FIR The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is matter of conscious relationship. Both the parties are major and there is not evidence of abortion therefore the charge sheet against the applicant is filed only under Section 376 504 506 IPC and Section 3 5 U.P. 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 prosecutix is 12.03.1996 by which the prosecutrix is 25 years and she is major. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she admitted the love affair and relationship with the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and further stated that the applicant Shanu began to make physical relationship with her forcibly. It is also submitted that the applicant has never pressurized at any point of time to 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 is languishing in jail since In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another 2021 0 Supreme On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that it is a heinous crime against a 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 In support of his contention learned A.G.A. has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 03.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13821 Harshvardhan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another Considering the facts and circumstances of the case rival contention of learned 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 bail application of the applicant Farhan Ahmad Shanu) is rejected accordingly Accordingly the bail application is rejected However trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year. Order Date : 5.1.2022