Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018BAIL/46209/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed for the applicant Rahul. The court noted the prosecutrix was prima facie a major based on medical reports and that conflicting statements suggested she eloped with the applicant. Bail was granted subject to conditions despite the gravity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to five conditions regarding evidence tampering, harassment, and appearance.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46209 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Srivastava Iii Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Rahul, in Case Crime No.66 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station, Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶6

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava-III, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix, going by the medico legal estimation of her age dated 27.2.2016, certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Dehat based on an ossification test, has been opined to be aged about 18 years that reckons her to be a major. The said report is annexed as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the High School certificate where the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 1.4.1998, that falls short by a month and a half of the age of 18 years, which according to the learned counsel for the applicant is on account of underscore of age. He submits that looking to the said evidence, the prosecutrix is clearly a major on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.2.2016. It is submitted that the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. It is further argued that the FIR

¶8

lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, while she was away from home on a call received from co-accused Nirbhay Gautam specifically nominates Nirbhay Gautam and not the applicant. It is pointed out that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has clearly acknowledged that so far as the applicant is concerned, she is in love with him for a period of one year past and that on 15.2.2016 at 10 O' clock in the morning, she was eloped with him, proceeding to Jhinjhak Railway Station and then to Kanpur Central. It is indicated that Rahul (the applicant) was taking her somewhere towards a forest area to which, a stranger named Nirbhay Gautam objected. Both of them came back to Railway Station where Rahul left her and went away. Thereafter co-accused Nirbhay Gautam took her with him to his uncles place where he ravished her. It is submitted that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that the applicant never ravished her. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Rahul (the applicant) has been portrayed as a stranger and not one with whom she was in love. It is indicated that she met him on the wayside while waiting to board a bus. He took her along with him to Jhinjhak Railway Station and from there to Kanpur Central Railway Station and ravished her. It is further pointed out that in the statement to the doctor during the medico legal examination that finds place at page-32 of the paper book, the prosecutrix has acknowledged the fact that the applicant is the prosecutrix's boyfriend that she eloped with him on 15.2.2016. It is also acknowledged that the two had physical relations near Kanpur Central Railway Station, where the applicant left her. It is thereafter that she met the co-accused Nirbhay Gautam, who is said to have taken her to his maternal uncles place where she stayed for four days and there the two had sexual relations twice. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is

¶9

that the prosecutrix is vacillating, shifting and unsure. Otherwise, it clearly indicates that the prosecutrix, who is a major, eloped with her boyfriend Rahul (the applicant). There is no definite allegation of rape against the applicant, though it may be there against co-accused Nirbhay Gautam. It is further said that the applicant does not have a criminal history behind him and is in jail since 05.10.2018.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the account of the prosecutrix in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and that made to the doctor is vacillating, shifting and uncertain and for the most part except in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, who is otherwise her boyfriend and the prosecutrix is prima facie a major, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Rahul , in Case Crime No.66 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station, Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.12.2018 NSC

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Kalicharan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P.