Criminal bail application allowed for Smt. Pramila, mother of the main accused. Court noted prima facie age of prosecutrix may be major, conflicting statements made prosecution case vacillating, and lack of criminal history for applicant.
Released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with standard 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. - 9876 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Pramila Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pathak,Ram Lalit Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.B. Mishra,Dhanbeer Mishra
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Smt. Pramila in Case Crime No.18 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station, Harriya, District Basti.
Heard Sri Ram Lalit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.B. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the complainant, Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age done by a Board of doctors and certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti vide his medical report dated 23.01.2018, based on an ossification test, the prosecutrix has been opined to be aged 17 years. It is submitted that giving the usual allowance of two years, or even one, the prosecutrix would reckon to be a major. It is submitted that in this view of the matter, the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix and the applicant's son were into a relationship for over two years past, and, they have married. They moved to Delhi and were staying there wherefrom, they were arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded by the police on 20.1.2018 soon after her recovery, where the prosecutrix has said that the applicant's son Anurag Sharma had been
frequenting her house for the past three years, and, the two are into a relationship. It is said that she would talk to Anurag Sharma over her mobile phone and upon learning that, her family members took away her mobile phone. It is also said that thereafter, she would clandestinely talk to the applicant's son over her mother's mobile phone, and, also that her family members would indulge in domestic violence over the said issue, with the prosecutrix. Learned counsel has further invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix made to the doctor at the time of her medico legal examination, in confidence, where too, she has said that she has been in love with the applicant's son, Anurag Sharma, for the past three years and would talk to him over her mobile phone, which her family members took away upon learning about the same. It is said that thereafter, the applicant's son gave her another mobile phone and the two, after planning, eloped to Delhi on 28.12.2017, where the two lived together. It is also said that on 17.1.2018, the two married, whereafter the police arrested them at Delhi. The statement before the doctor was recorded on 20.1.2018. It is pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that was recorded on 28.12.2017, the prosecutrix has spoken absolutely inculpatory, where she has said that she was made to sniff some deleterious substance by the applicant when she had gone to answer the call of nature along with the applicant. She fell unconscious. She regained her senses to find herself on board by a train. Anurag was around who threatened with a knife. The applicant joined the two there. She was conveyed by train to Delhi. It is alleged that she was forced to marry on 17.10.2018, in a temple. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., even if taken to be what it says, is drastically at a variance with the categorical statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161
Cr.P.C., and the statement made to the doctor, in confidence, during her medico legal examination. It is otherwise said that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has been recorded under threat of the prosecutrix's family members, and, is utterly false. It is argued that whatever it might be, the prosecution case stands on very shaky ground and the applicant is the mother of the main accused, who has been falsely implicated in order to spite her son, with whom the prosecutrix has eloped.
Learned AGA and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and harped much upon the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., submitting that the said statement is the only truthful account of the occurrence and the other statements made by the prosecutrix are false. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant has a criminal history, where she has sold off many other girls from the village, and, that is what she was doing to the prosecutrix. In this regard, the stand of the learned AGA in the instructions received and in the counter affidavit is clear, that the applicant has no criminal history.
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 prosecutrix, is prima facie a major and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and that made to the doctor by her is exculpatory, whereas the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is inculpatory that makes the prosecution case vacillating and, therefore, not one that stands on firm ground, besides the fact that the applicant is the mother of the main accused, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Pramila in Case Crime No.18 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station, Harriya, District Basti be released on bail on executing her 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 :- 6.12.2018/NSC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant be granted bail despite serious allegations including under the POCSO Act.
Whether conflicting statements by the prosecutrix regarding her age and the nature of the relationship render the prosecution case vacillating.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Pramila
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
