Allahabad High Court
Ashish Massey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 September, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175932
Reserved On:- 29.08.2023
Delivered On:- 06.09.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38075 of 2023
Applicant :- Ashish Massey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- R.B. Singh,Surendra Nath Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard Sri, R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant Sri Pankaj Kumar learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ashish Massey, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2023, under Section- 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, and 3/5 of Vidhi Dharam Parivartan Adhiniyam Act, 2002 Police Station - Madhuban, District -Mau.
3. There is allegation in the FIR that the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years had gone to school on 23.05.2023 at 10:00 am, but she did not returned. Her mobile phone was also not responding. FIR was got registered under Section 363 IPC on 25.05.2023.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that no one was named in the FIR. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has claimed her age as 16 years and educational qualification of class XI. She has stated that she used to talk with the applicant on mobile phone. Two-three months ago, she was called by the applicant, Asarba @ Rabiya, used to goad her to go to the applicant. She got a train ticket for the victim for going from Mau to Delhi. She broke sim of her mobile phone and got her fresh sim card. On 23.05.2023, she boarded the train and reached Anand Vihar on 25.05.2023 at 7:00 am. From there she went to bus stand and boarded the bus for Ajmer and reached there at 9:00 pm where the applicant came and took her. She lived with the applicant as his wife and entered into physical relationship. He entered into physical relationship by misrepresentation of correct facts about his religious faith. Thereafter, police came and caught her. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged that the applicant entered into physical relationship with her number of times and when she asked him to marry her, he put the condition of first changing her religion. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim herself left her place of residence and lawful guardianship of her parents. Therefore, the offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC is not made out against the applicant. Offences of rape and conspiracy is also not made out since the victim has admitted entering into physical relationship with consent. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not criminal history except present case to his credit. He is languishing in jail since 31.05.2023.
5. Learned counsel for AGA and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the bail application and have submitted that the victim was below 16 years of her age at the time of incident. She was made to go with the applicant by way of conspiracy hatched by the applicant in collusion with another woman who helped her to board the train and then bus and go to the applicant. She financed travel of victim. They have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of X (Minor) Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 194, where Apex Court has held that consent of minor below 16 years of age is of no consequence. It has further been submitted that the applicant and prosecutrix belong to different religions and their marriage could not have been solemnized without conversion of religion of the applicant and the victim. They have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Momin Vs. State of U.P. & Another, where bail application of an accused was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide Bail Application 35764 of 2023 in similar facts and circumstances.
6. This Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties does not finds any ground for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.
7. The bail application is accordingly, rejected.
8. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :-06.09.2023
Abhishek
