The petitioner was arrested in connection with Barari PS Case No. 288 of 2019 on the 11th of September 2019. Under section 341 IPC, Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 376, “Punishment for rape”, section 354, “Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.” section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.” section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation.” section 120-B, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy” section 34 IPC, “Acts have done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, “No child shall be detained in the police station in the night for any reason.”
This Judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 20th of July 2021 by the Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of Md. Tofik Alam v/s State of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 35522 of 2020, Mr. Raghib Ahsan represented as the senior advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Arif represented the state of Bihar as the additional public prosecutor.
The following are the facts of the case, there was an allegation against the petitioner that he committed rape on the informant and he continued to maintain a physical relationship with her with the pretext that he will marry her, and later the informant complained of having pain in her stomach and after approaching the father who had also molested her and told her that he would get her married to his son only if she had a physical relationship with him.
However, the counsel for the petitioner claimed that this is a false complaint and is being done to exert pressure on the petitioner to marry the informant. He submitted that it is unrealistic and unbelievable that an own father would molest his child and ask for a physical relationship. According to the reports, the informant was about 17-18 years of age. The counsel stated that under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The informant claimed that the petitioner again raped her on 15/09/2019 but the informant was held in police custody from 13/09/2019- 16/09/2019. And therefore the petitioner has not committed rape on 15/09/2019. The informant also claimed she was raped in a filed by the petitioner when she was called by his sisters and the counsel held that it was unbelievable for the reason that such an act would have not been committed in the presence of his sisters. The counsel held there was a lot of discrepancy in the statements of the informant and indicated the falsity of the allegation.
The additional public prosecutor held no dispute regarding the discrepancy in the statements mentioned by the informant and filed in the FIR both the statements show that rape was committed on the informant by the petitioner and that’s what is essential for conviction.
The court concluded that “upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behavior of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or non-cooperation shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”