Allahabad High Court
Sonu Saini 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:97128
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13479 of 2024
Applicant :- Sonu Saini
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Sharma
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
Shri Niraj Kumar 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 this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2023 at Police Station Baccharayun, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha), under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 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 30.01.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Vivek Sharma learned counsel for the first information as well as learned AGA, from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor in the FIR 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) 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 legal basis for age related entries in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 18 years are unreliable.
(iii) The victim in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 17 years and 17 and half years of age respectively.
(v) The medical report drawn up as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 18 years of age. The victim is in fact a major.
3. The applicant and the victim were intimate and had eloped together to Nainital.
4. The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship.
5. The victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant and that she eloped with him on her own volition. The victim has stated that she stayed with the applicant in a rented accommodation and that she had consensual physical relations with him. Lastly the victim has stated that the two had visited Allahabad for registration of their marriage. However, the same could not be done as the registration office was closed on account of a holiday.
6. The victim has not made any allegation of abduction, wrongful detention or commission of rape against the applicant in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
7. The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at various public places but never raised an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party.
8. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape has not been produced by the prosecution.
9. Material inconsistencies in the FIR, the statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.
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 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- Sonu Saini 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 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.
A copy of this order as well as a copy of the judgment in Monish (supra) shall be provided to the learned District Judge, J.P. Nagar (Amroha) to ensure that the learned trial court is guided by the law laid down by this Court and appropriately counsel the learned trial court in this case.
It is clarified that the above observations shall not be construed adversely against any judicial officer unless the learned District Judge comes to another conclusion.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
Akram
