Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019BAIL/48243/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail on behalf of Rahul in a criminal case involving charges under IPC and POCSO. The court considered the Chief Medical Officer's report estimating the prosecutrix's age at 18, the absence of injuries, and the inconsistent statements made by the prosecutrix across different police records.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties under specified conditions.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48243 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

In compliance with the order of this Court dated 18.12.2018, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal has forwarded a copy of the Chief Medical Officer's report in sealed cover regarding the age of the prosecutrix. The sealed cover has been opened in Court. The report is exhibited and made part of the record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Rahul in Case Crime No.0205 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Baniyather, District Sambhal.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Sambhal, together with his Board of doctors, through his memo dated 2.1.2019, based on an ossification test, the prosecutrix has been opined to be aged about 18 years. He submits that going by the aforesaid medico legally estimated age, the prosecutrix is clearly a major and, therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel has pointed out that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded on the date that the

¶9

prosecutrix was recovered, she has spoken exculpatory saying that she is in love with the applicant and the applicant took her along with him to Moradabad in the first instance and from there to Chandigarh and then to Himachal Pradesh. The two returned to Delhi and from Delhi they went to Haridwar then to Rudrapur. The two stayed together in Dharamshala's. The two came back to Chandausi because the applicant had to take funds, when the two were arrested. It is pointed out that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., three days later, the prosecutrix has spoken inclupatory and said that the applicant took her away from school and confined her to a room. He ravished her putting her under fear. It is also said that in the evening, the two maternal uncles of the applicant, put her to sleep by making her sniff some deleterious substance. When she regain consciousness, she was at Chandigarh. Thereafter, she was taken to Himachal Pradesh and then to Delhi and Haridwar. It is said that at Rudrapur bus stand, the applicant met another boy Meghraj and the two ravished her by turns threatening to do her to death. Learned counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that a reading of the FIR lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix also shows that the prosecutrix eloped with the applicant as it is indicated that the two of them were found to have stayed at the house of one Virendra Singh son of Manohar, after the school was over, and left his premises at six in the evening which is not consistent with a case of forcible rape. It is further pointed out that a perusal of the medico legal report shows that the prosecutrix has neither sustained any external injury or any internal injury or to her private parts, which would not be the case if it was a case of rape by two boys as said in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶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 prosecutrix is prima facie a major, the fact that the stand of the prosecutrix is wavering where the FIR shows a case of elopement, the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that is clearly exculpatory, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is inculpatory, the fact that the medico legal report does not show prima facie even the slightest hint of injury sustained by the prosecutrix, 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.0205 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Baniyather, District Sambhal 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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.1.2019 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

Anish Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Shahrookh Vs State of U.P.

Chhotu @ Om Narain Vs State of U.P.

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Santosh @ Sintoo Vs State of U.P.