Allahabad High Court
Ramji vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106317
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22237 of 2024
Applicant :- Ramji
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mandeep Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjay Kumar,Vijay Shantam
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri Mandeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Shantam learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Naraura, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years on 23.01.2024, when she had gone to appear in her exams.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further stated that the F.I.R. is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant on her own sweet will and she has not levelled any allegation of sexual assault against the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that as per high school certificate age of the victim is more than 16 years. He has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed.
7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.12.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant Sri Vijay Shantam as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant on the ground that the age of the victim is 15 years 5 months and 17 days only, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Ramji, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme 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.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
Jitendra
