The Single Judge Bench of Justice Samit Gopal, while rejecting the bail, noted that:
The prosecutrix was junior in the office of the applicant. The allegations are against a person practising law and is a person in uniform involved in a noble profession. The office of a lawyer is not less respected than Courts of law. The act as complained of by her against the applicant is told by her in detail in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
The Accused lawyer has been charged under Sections 366, 376, 354-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. As per FIR on 07.04.2021 at 00:32 hours, under Section 366 I.P.C. by Karunapati Patel against the applicant and Sipahi Lal Shukla in connection with an incident alleged to have taken place on 06.04.2021 at 13:30 hours alleging therein that the first informant is a resident of village Kaudru, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj.
Compliant (father) alleged that his daughter aged about 20 years is an LL.B. student and was practising in the High Court with Rajkaran Patel (the present applicant) who is a resident of Village Sohasha, Police Station Mungra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur who is an Advocate in the High Court. On the day of occurrence at about 1:30 pm from near Alia Law Agency, both the accused persons have enticed away his daughter. The date of birth of his daughter is 15.11.2000. The first information report is thus lodged.
The Court observed that:
“There has been no reason for why the applicant is being falsely implicated. The investigation for other accused persons is pending. The apprehension of learned counsels for the State and of the panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Service Committee of the applicant being in a position to influence the investigation and tamper with the evidence cannot be ruled out at this stage.
Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.”
No comments:
Post a Comment