Allahabad High Court
Golu @ Dijvijay vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84056
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13842 of 2024
Applicant :- Golu @ Dijvijay
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Fazil,Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I 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. 605 of 2023 at Police Station-Mandi Dhanaura, District- Amroha under Sections 323, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 01.01.2024.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 22.02.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel assisted by Shri Mohammad Fazil, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail.
1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 16 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 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) is contested 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 in the school record. The school records disclosing her age as 16 years are unreliable.
(iii) The victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 16 years of age respectively.
(iv) The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is above 18 years of age. In fact the victim is a major.
3. The victim and the applicant were intimate.
4. The applicant and the victim were found in a compromising position at the house of the former by the parents of the victim.
5. The F.I.R. was lodged after their relationship was exposed and to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim.
6. As per the prosecution case, the victim was forcefully dragged through street to the house of the applicant. However, the medical report does not depict any injuries caused by the forceful dragging of the victim or commission of rape with her.
7. False and aggravated allegations have been made by the victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents to deflect attention from her conduct and to save the failing prosecution case.
8. Major inconsistencies in the FIR, statements under Section 161 CrPC, Section 164 CrPC discredit the prosecution case.
9. However, learned AGA points out that the applicant has one more criminal case pending against the applicant. Rejoining the issue and relying on the instructions received by the learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person and he is in jail and does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the said case could not be searched out and stated earlier in the bail application. However, on the basis of the records available with the AGA and instructions obtained from the applicant, it is contended that the applicant was falsely nominated in the said case only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said criminal case has no bearing on 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- Golu @ Dijvijay 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, Amroha 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 :- 9.5.2024
Jaswant
