This is a bail application regarding offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO. The court allowed bail, noting that the initial FIR alleged molestation but rape was introduced later without medical confirmation of seminal stains.
Released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each under specified conditions.
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. - 4462 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajju Alias Bangali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rameshwar Singh Kushwaha,Ramanuj Yadav,Virendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Rajju Alias Bangali in connection with Case Crime No. 818 of 2017 (S.T. No. 43 of 2017) under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot.
Heard Sri R.S. Kushwaha and Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR in the present case that was lodged two days after the occurrence that is to say on 05.09.2017, the occurrence being dated 03.09.2017 by the father of the prosecutrix does not say even by as much as a hint that the prosecutrix was ravished. All that he says that she was molested or at best an attempt to rape was made. The FIR was registered under Section 354D IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Lateron, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the grand-mother of the prosecutrix who has said to be accompanying her and the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. a case of rape has been introduced which, in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, is clearly an improvement based on an afterthought, and, on suggestion of the police. It is submitted that in case. the prosecutrix who is said to be a mentally challenged girl had, in fact, been ravished in the presence of her grand-mother as the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. go, the said fact would have figured in the FIR clearly that was lodged two days after the occurrence. The absence of an allegation of rape shows that it is an improvement in the prosecution case to give it more teeth which places the entire case, under a serious cloud of doubt.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that a perusal of the medical report shows that the doctor has remarked that stains are present over the salvar of the prosecutrix that seem to be seminal stains, which clearly makes it to be a case of rape. Learned counsel for the applicant in a short reply submits that there is no firm opinion of the doctor
expressed either about rape, or the stains found on the clothes to be seminal stains.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that in the FIR that was lodged two days after the occurrence to which grand-mother of the prosecutrix was a witness no case of rape is alleged, and the said fact was introduced lateron, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Rajju Alias Bangali involved in Case Crime No. 818 of 2017 (S.T. No. 43 of 2017) under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 14.11.2018
Deepak
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the improvement in allegations of rape and the gravity of the offence under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajju Alias Bangali
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
