In a bail application under Sections 363, 376, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, the court rejected the plea noting the prosecutrix is a child (15 years) and that no prima facie case for bail is found without expressing opinion on merits. The court directed trial within six months.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40611 of 2018
Applicant :- Ritik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
In compliance with the order dated 25.10.2018, a report from the Chief Medical Officer, Hapur regarding the medically estimated age of the prosecutrix by a Medical Board has been received in sealed cover. The same has been ordered to be opened in Court and exhibited. It is placed on record.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Ritik in Case Crime No.42 of 2018, under Sections 363, 376, 323, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hafizpur, District Hapur.
Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she is aged about 17 years and has come up with an allegation of rape against the applicant, whereas going by her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is a contradictory version where she says that she is into a relationship with the applicant, whom she loves and that the two wanted to marry. It is further said that both of them left home in order to marry and were proceeding to
Ghaziabad when they were caught. In the First Information Report the allegation is that the applicant has enticed her away, the crime being registered there under Section 363 IPC alone. Now, after she has been recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded, Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act have been added.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that a perusal of the medico legal report dated 21.11.2018 received from the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Hapur shows that the prosecutrix is aged 15 years. He further submits that looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is by all standards a child, the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. matter little, whether the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix is forcible or consensual.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is by all standards a child, aged about 15 years, prima facie, where it is of no consequence whether the relationship is consensual or it is a case of ravishment, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that trial pending before the
concerned court be concluded expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 NSC
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application is maintainable given the accused is charged under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
Whether the prosecutrix's medical report showing her to be 15 years of age bars grant of bail.
What direction can be issued to ensure the conclusion of trial pending before the concerned court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶14
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Ritik
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
