Bablu Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 35948 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bablu Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 December, 2023

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241583
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37996 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Bablu Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arunesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Arunesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Present application for bail came up for orders on 01.12.2023 and this Court passed the following order:-

"1. Heard Mr. Arunesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Bablu Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 319 of 2023 under Sections 366, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Ramgarh Taal, District-Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present bail application has been served upon first informant/opposite party-2 on 02.09.2023. However, in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of first informant/opposite party-2 to oppose the present application for bail.

5.Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 08.06.2023 lodged by first informant Rajkapoor(father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 319 of 2023 under Sections 366, 506, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Ramgarh Taal, District-Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. five persons namely Sunil Singh, Bablu Singh (applicant herein), Grand mother of Bablu, Jeeja of Bablu and brother of Bablu have been nominated as named accused.

6. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that the named accused Sunil Singh kidnapped the daughter of first informant and deliberately solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix.

7. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was recovered on 12.06.2023. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein the prosecutrix has stated that applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix.

8. Considering the age of the prosecutrix, who is 16 years and one month as per date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in the institution first attended by her and prima facie there being no consent of the parents of the prosecutrix, therefore, it is desirable to have the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before this Court.

9 In view of above, it is directed that the prosecutrix shall appear in person before this Court on 15.12.2023. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur shall ensure the presence of the prosecutrix before this Court on the said date.

10. Put up again as fresh on 15.12.2023."

4. Pursuant to above order dated 01.12.2023, the prosecutrix has been produced before Court by Sub-Inspector Hari Prakash Yadav along with lady constable Arti Srivastava. The presence of the aforesaid police personnel and the prosecutrix shall be endorsed on the order sheet by taking their signatures.

5. Record shows that an FIR dated 08.06.2023 was lodged by first informant-Rajkapoor (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0319 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Police Station-Ramgarh Tal, District-Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid FIR, 5 persons namely (1) Sunil Singh, (2) Bablu Singh, (3) Grand-mother of Bablu, (4) Jeeja of Bablu and (5) Brother of Bablu have been nominated as named accused.

6. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that named accused Bablu Singh solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix forcibly. Upon request made by the parents of the prosecutrix to return her, a sum of Rs. 1 lac was demanded for returning the prosecutrix.

7. After above-mentioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was recovered on 12.06.2023. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Same is on record at page 12 of the supplementary affidavit. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has supported the FIR. She has further stated that she herself joined Suraj @ Sunil and thereafter accompanied the said accused to Bihar. Thereafter, the marriage of the prosecutrix was got solemnized with one Bablu Singh in a temple. The prosecutrix has further stated that she stay with Bablu Singh for a period of 8 days. Physical relations were also established between herself and Bablu Singh. Subsequent to above, the prosecutrix was requested for her internal medical examination. The prosecutrix, however, refused for her internal medical examination. Ultimately, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Same is on record at page 17 of the supplementary affidavit. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has departed from her previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but has again stated that her marriage was solemnized with Sunil Singh. Investigating Officer, during the course of Investigation recovered the School Leaving Certificate of the prosecutrix pertaining to Class-8 wherein the the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 07.05.2007. The FIR giving rise to present criminal proceedings was lodged on 08.06.2023. As such, the prosecutrix was aged about 16 years and 1 month on the date of lodging of the FIR. Investigating Officer further examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses so examined have substantially supported the FIR. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of applicant is fully established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 07.08.2023 whereby applicant-Bablu Singh has been charge sheeted under Sections 366, 376, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act whereas Sunil has been charge sheeted under Sections 363, 372, 506 IPC.

8. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Referring to the medico legal examination report of the prosecutrix, he submits that since the prosecutrix has herself refused for her internal medical examination, therefore, there is no medical evidence to support the ocular version of the occurrence as unfolded in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. Referring to the aforementioned statements of the prosecutrix, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the present applicant, therefore, the criminality, if any, alleged against applicant stands washed off. He, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 13.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 6 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence of this Court. The prosecutrix is a young girl aged about 16 years and 1 month as per her date of birth recorded in the Transfer Certificate pertaining to Class-8 of the prosecutrix. Referring to the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, he submits that the age of the prosecutrix can be determined only with reference to her date of birth recorded in any document recognized under Sections 94(2)(i) and 94(2)(ii) of the Act of 2015. Since the Transfer Certificate of a child cannot be considered as per the provisions of aforesaid Act for determining the age of the child, therefore, the said document is wholly irrelevant. Reference was also made to the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846, there is no medical evidence to support the charge sheet. According to the learned A.G.A, it was in the light of aforesaid fact that the prosecutrix has been summoned by Court. At this juncture, the prosecutrix was personally examined by the Court and her reiteration before the Court is reproduced hereinunder:-

(i). ??????- ???? ??? ------ ?????- ???? ?????

(ii). ??????- ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ------ ?????- ????, ??? ???

(iii). ??????- ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ------ ?????- ???? ????? ????

(iv). ??????- ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ------ ?????- ????-??? ?? ???

11. After the statement of the prosecutrix had been recorded before this Court, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of above, categorical statement of the prosecutrix and coupled with the fact that since prosecutrix is minor and there is no consent of the parents of the prosecutrix qua the marriage of the prosecutrix with the applicant, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

13. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that since the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

14. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

15. It is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 20.12.2023

Vinay