Allahabad High Court
Sunny Saroj vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 May, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97187
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13424 of 2024
Applicant :- Sunny Saroj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
Sri Niraj Tiwari, 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. 126 of 2023 at Police Station- Raunapur, District- Azamgarh under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 24.06.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 29.08.2023.
The following arguments made by Sri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by 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 14 years in the prosecution case 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 victim in her statements under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 15 years of age.
(iii). Medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is about 19 years of age.
3. The victim and the applicant were intimate and had eloped together.
4. The victim in her statement under Section 161 CrPC has stated that she and the applicant resided together for 19 days. The victim has also asserted that she had consensual physical relations with the applicant.
5. The first informant who is the father of the victim has not supported the prosecution case in his testimony before the trial court.
6. The victim in her deposition before the trial court has affirmed her version as stated in the statements under Section 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC.
7. The victim has admitted to consensual relations with the applicant.
8. The victim has not made any allegation of commission of rape, abduction or forceful assault by the applicant in her testimony before the trial court.
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 by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant 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- Sunny Saroj 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.
The trial court while rejecting the bail application has neglected to consider the medical opinion/ossification test drawn up to determine her age which opines that the victim is between 18 years of age in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021).
A copy of this order along with the judgment of Monish (supra) be provided to the District Judge to alert the concerned Presiding Officer of the law laid down by this Court in Monish (supra) and ensure that it is adhered to in an appropriate manner.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
Pravin
