Amarkant vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10898 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13917 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Amarkant
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 25.03.2023.

3. Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.339 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 5J(II)/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Binawar, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 14 years, on 20.11.2022 at about 4:00 PM.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was instituted after a delay of twelve days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Initially, the FIR was instituted under Section 363 I.P.C. and later on the case has been inflated to Section 376 I.P.C. and 5J(II)/6 of POCSO Act after recording of the statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C., which is after a delay of seven days of her recovery. The said statement has been recorded after tutoring by her family members. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet will before the doctor conducting the medical examination. As per her statement, her age was 15 years, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 21.12.2022.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was found pregnant at the time of recovery as is evident from annexure no.8 filed with the bail application and the date of birth of the victim, as per school certificate, was 22.07.2008, whereby her age comes out to be about 14 years, thus the consent, if any, pales into insignificance. The victim has categorically stated in her statement that it was the applicant who had subjected her to rape.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim which is barely a bit more than 14 years and she being found pregnant and the statement of the victim indicates towards the applicant having subjected her to rape, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. The court concerned is required to get the ossification test of the victim conducted if deems it proper.

11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

Order Date :- 12.4.2023

Ravi Kant