Allahabad High Court
Pritam Alias Neeru Rao vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 3 May, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79844
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11840 of 2024
Applicant :- Pritam Alias Neeru Rao
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarfaraz Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
Shri Ranjit Sagar, learned AGA 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. 445 of 2023 at Police Station- Srailakhansi, District- Mau under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 24.01.2024.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 07.03.2024.
The following arguments made by Sri Ubaidur Rehman, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Ranjit Sagar, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor in the F.I.R. of 15 years only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case 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 14 years are unreliable, since the victim is a major.
(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.
3. The victim and the applicant were intimate.
4. The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship.
5. The victim in her statement 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 to Panipat and got married with him of her own free will. Lastly she has specifically asserted that she had consensual physical relations with the applicant.
6. The victim has not made any allegation of commission of rape, abduction or forceful assault by the applicant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C.
7. 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.
8. The victim was never confined or bound down. She was at public places but never resisted the applicant nor raised an alarm. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.
9. Medical evidence to corroborate the commission of rape has not been produced by the prosecution.
10. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
11. 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- Preetam Alias Neeru Rao 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.
(iii) The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed 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
Pravin
