The Uttar Pradesh court in the case of Kautilya Gaur v/s State of U.P. denied anticipatory bail to the Presiding Officer of Commercial Court alleged of raping a woman employee working under him.
The complainant or informant victim lodged an FIR against the Presiding Officer of Commercial Court, Jhansi, Kautilya Gaur with the allegations that in the afternoon, she, (who admittedly is one of the ministerial staff working in that court) was sitting on her seat. The peon Ritik told her to reach the chamber of the P.O. There she found reader Mrs. Shamshad Bano exiting from P.O.’s chamber saying that she (victim) got employed in the said court on compassionate ground. It is alleged in the FIR that on entering the chamber, the P.O. shouted at her saying that how many spouses she had. She informed him that on the death of her husband late K.K. Yadav who was a Munsif Magistrate, she remarried retired judge Rajendra Kumar and that the Hon’ble High Court has already been informed of her re-marriage.
It has been alleged that he refused to listen her and threatened that he will write to High Court for estopping her pension. He used foul words, thereafter he bolted the door of his chamber and whipped out his revolver pointing towards her chest. He opened his belt and put down his pants and under garment and showed his private part. He snatched away her mobile phone and when she tried to retrieve it he made her fall down on the table and also tore away her kurta and jacket. He also scratched on her left chest and abdomen. She sustained abrasions.
Furthermore, It has been alleged that somehow she managed to come out. No official or any other person came to save her. She informed her husband and also called the police by mobile call. The police opened the door of the office and only she came out.
The D.G.C. (Crl.) contended that had the complainant/informant any intention to falsely implicate the applicant, She could have lodged the FIR denoting some other place and time of occurrence to lend it credibility as suggested by defence. However, the contents of the FIR cannot be branded as false on the face of it. It takes much courage for a woman to impute the kinds of allegations against a sitting judicial officer of the District Judge rank.
The sessions judge Jyotsna Sharma noted that the contents of the FIR appears to be quite serious and highly offensive against the applicant. The fact cannot be ignored as argued by the D.G.C. (Crl.) that it takes a lot of courage for a woman employee to make the imputations of such a serious nature against that very P.O. under whom she has been working.
The court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application held that section 438 Cr.P.C. gives a discretionary power to the courts to grant anticipatory bail in suitable cases depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, however, the discretion is to be exercised on sound grounds.
The court added that the applicant has given a version of his own, however, taking into account the gravity and seriousness of the charges, it does not find it fit to grant the benefit of provisions of anticipatory bail.