Allahabad High Court
Aditya Kumar @ Daroga 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:181191
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39653 of 2023
Applicant :- Aditya Kumar @ Daroga
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Shashank Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2023 at Police Station- Bahariyabad, District- Ghazipur, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 24.07.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 16.08.2023.
The following arguments made by Shri Ram Pravesh Yadav, 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 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.
(iii) The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is above 18 years of age.
(iv). Medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is about 17 years of age.
Two submissions are made in regard to the aforesaid medical report. Firstly, the range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Secondly, the relevant scientific criteria as per latest medical protocol which would establish the majority of the victim has been excluded from consideration in the medical report. The medical report is flawed. In fact the victim is a major.
3. The applicant and the victim were intimate.
4. The FIR is a result of parental opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship.
5. The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship.
6. The victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has stated that she eloped with the applicant initially by motorcycle and thereafter by train to Mumbai. Finally the victim and the applicant went to Chennai by train and stayed their as a married couple. After they had exhausted their fund they returned home.
7. No allegation of abduction, wrongful detention and commission of rape has been made by the victim against the applicant in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C.
8. The victim was present at various public places but never raised an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party.
9. 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.
10. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape has not been produced by the prosecution.
11. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
12. 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- Aditya Kumar @ Daroga 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
