Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 31 July, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128331
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49910 of 2023
Applicant :- Vijay Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anita Singh,Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Prem Babu Verma,Ram Babu Sharma,Shashi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Singh,G.A.,Rahul Mishra,Sanjay Mishra
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ram Babu Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2023, under Sections 452, 506, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be uncle of the victim aged about 14 years, is stated to have forced her into a room of her house and committed rape with her on 13.08.2023. The victim was rushed to the hospital at Bulandshahr for her treatment. The family was shocked by the incident as the victim was bleeding, as such the instant FIR was instituted after a delay.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. The medical examination of the victim was taken after a delay of one month and injuries have been observed and there was no occasion for observing the injuries that too after a delay of one month of the incident, as such the injuries being present on the date of medical examination speaks volume of false implication. The injuries may be self-inflicted or might have been caused in some other incident whatsoever.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.09.2023 which itself is delayed by one month and the said statement cannot be taken into consideration as it is filled up with tutoring.
8. Learned counsel has further argued that as per ossification test report, age of the victim has come up between 17-18 years. The age has deliberately been suppressed by the informant to make the case fall within the purview of Section 376(3) IPC. The victim being more than 16 years old at the time of incident, the case does not come within the purview of Section 376(3) IPC.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that as per certificate of class-Xth in which the victim was studying, her date of birth is stated to be 16.10.2009 but the said document has no evidentiary value being hit by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, whereby the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.
11. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, in which it has been opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed.
12. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was aged about 14 years and was a student of class-Xth and she could not be more than 15 years at the time of offence.
13. Learned counsel for the informant has next stated that as per ossification test report, age of the victim was between 17-18 years. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that age may vary of about two years regarding the ossification test report is concerned. In the instant case, the victim has sustained several injuries on her vital organ and if the leverage of two years can be taken on the upper side then why it cannot be taken up on the lower side.
14. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the trial is at its conclusive end as already statement of accused has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case is fixed for defence evidence.
15. Learned counsel for the informant has next stated that the medical report of the victim indicates that there was a sign of bleeding and tearing in her private part. The doctor has also opined that sign of forceful penetration was present. The statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit indicates that the victim was suffering from bleeding continuously for about one month, as such the said fact corroborates the medical examination report.
16. The Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. The said judgment has been passed in the case of sexual offence only.
17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the injury report of the victim coupled by her statement and also the status of trial being at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
18. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
19. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 31.7.2025
Sumit S
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
