Allahabad High Court
Ram Kishun vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181106
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39621 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Kishun
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served notices of the bail application upon the the victim as well as the CWC.
By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2023 at Police Station- Kadaura, District- Jalaun, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC, Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 08.06.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 31.07.2023.
The following arguments made by Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant,which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant has contested the minority of the victim as stated in the prosecution case.
2. The victim has been falsely depicted as minor only to implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.
3. The age of the victim is assailed on the following grounds in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021 (Monish Vs State of U.P. and others).
(i). There are material contradictions in the age of the victim depicted in various prosecution documents.
(ii). The age of the victim was incorrectly entered by her parents in the school register only to give her an advantage in life.
(iii). The school certificate showing her age as 15 years is unreliable.
(iii) No medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was got done by the prosecution as the same would have established the majority of the victim and falsified the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major.
4. The applicant and the victim were intimate.
5. The FIR is a result of parental opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship.
6. The FIR which was got registered by the mother of the victim does not allege commission of rape but only states that the victim had eloped with the applicant with some money.
7. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant to Jhansi by truck.
8. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not made any allegation of abduction, forceful assault or commission of rape by the applicant with the victim.
9. False and aggravated allegations were made by the victim subsequently in her statement under Section 164 CrPC against the applicant at the behest of her parents only to save the failing prosecution case and deflect attention from her own conduct.
10. Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R., statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.
11. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.
12. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
13. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Ram Kishun be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023
Pravin
