The High Court allowed the bail application of Rakesh Sahni, arguing that the prosecutrix was likely a major based on a medical ossification test and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. suggested a consensual relationship, though the court expressed no opinion on merits.
Released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each.
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. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3341 of 2019
Applicant :- Rakesh Sahni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghawendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Rakesh Sahni, in Case Crime No.95 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rewti, District Ballia.
Heard Sri Raghawendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, 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, certified by the Medical Officer, District Women Hospital, Ballia dated 4.12.2018, the age of the prosecutrix is above 18 years. The aforesaid opinion is based on an ossification test. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has said that she knows the applicant who hails from Sultanpur for the past one year. She has further said that his sister is married to a man living close to her place. She is a friend of his sisters and she frequents her place. She had met the applicant two or three years ago and for the past one year, they been in
telephonic contact. She has said that they did not visit each other personally on 11.7.201, the prosecutrix left home of her own without telling anyone with just the clothes that she was wearing. She proceeded to Buxar by some vehicle that she has described as Gaadi . She called the applicant over phone. The applicant had reached Buxar at 7:00 O' clock in the morning that day. It is said that the two of them proceeded to Rasulpur, Gujarat where they rented a room. It is said that on 15.07.2018, the two married in a temple at Rasulpur. Thereafter the two cohabitate as man and wife. It is also said that the applicant works as a mechanic. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that upon learning that a case has been registered from his family, the two proceeded back to Ballia by train on 17.11.2018. She further stated that she wants to go back to her husband. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the aforesaid stand of the prosecutrix, there is no justification to detain the applicant, pending trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
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 fact that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is exculpatory, 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 Rakesh Sahni , in Case Crime No.95 of
2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rewti, District Ballia 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:
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 :- 23.1.2019 NSC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case alleging offences under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the prosecutrix's prima facie status as a major and her exculpatory statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. justify granting bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rakesh Sahni
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
