Allahabad High Court
Sunil vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 May, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79664
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11011 of 2024
Applicant :- Sunil
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Prakash
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
Shri Niraj Tiwari, learned AGA 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 the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2024 at Police Station-Marihan District-Mirzapur under Sections 363, 366, 376(i) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 21.01.2024.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 17.02.2024.
The following arguments made by Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Krishna Chandra Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Niraj Tiwari, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 17 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.
2.The age of the victim set out in the prosecution case is refuted in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) and on the following grounds:
(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.
(ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 16 years and 11 months are unreliable.
(iii) The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 17 years of age.
(iv) The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 18-19 years of age. In fact the victim is a major.
3. The victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she left her house of her own volition as she was being forced by her parents to marry someone against her wishes. The victim has further stated that she had called the applicant and asked him to help her escape to Delhi. The applicant assisted the victim in going to Delhi where she stayed in a separate room. The victim has categorically asserted that the applicant did not commit rape with her.
4. The victim has not made any allegation of abduction, wrongful detention or commission of rape in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
5. The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at various public places. She did not raise an alarm nor did she resist the applicant.
6. Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R. statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.
7. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.
8. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.
9. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
10. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial 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- Sunil 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.
The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.
Before parting some observations have to be made in the facts of this case. The learned trial court has failed to comply with the judgment rendered by this Court in Monish (supra) regarding the manner of consideration of age of the victim in bail applications filed by the accused persons under the POCSO Act.
A copy of this order as well as a copy of the judgment in Monish (supra) shall be provided to the learned District Judge to ensure that the learned trial courts are guided by the law laid down by this Court.
It is clarified that the above observations shall not be construed adversely against any judicial officer.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
Dhananjai
