The court rejected a bail application filed by Arvind accused of rape under the POCSO Act. The court found the statement of the prosecutrix intact and noted the heinousness of the offence, refusing bail without commenting on the merits of the charges.
The bail application is rejected.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26784 of 2021
Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Arvind, in Case Crime No. 78 of 2021, under Sections- 376, 452, 506 I.P.C.& 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Naya Gaon, District- Etah.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 24.5.2021; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; report was got lodged at 11:11 A.M. of 24.5.2021, whereas occurrence was of 23.5.2021 at 16:30 P.M., even then one day late report was got lodged; statement under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. is with material contradictions and it is apparent that once the mother reached to see this occurrence, then this report was got lodged; the inference is there that it was a consensual act; prosecutrix has been held to be of 17 to 18 years of age in medical age determination by Medical Board. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA as well as Sri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed with this contention that occurrence of rape was got lodged by father of victim and the contention of rape is there in the statements recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. and even before the Medical Officer, it is fully intact; applicant is resident of same village, there is no likelihood of any mis-identity; the trauma faced by the victim justifies the delay in lodging of FIR, as above.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that report was got lodged, as above, and the statement of prosecutrix is fully intact with regard to rape committed by applicant.
Considering all above facts and circumstances, heinousness of offence of rape, severity of the punishment in the case of
conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, no ground for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .
However, trial of present case be concluded strictly in accordance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Kamarjahan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application by the applicant charged with rape under POCSO Act and IPC should be accepted.
Whether sufficient grounds for bail exist despite the applicant's claim of innocence and lack of criminal antecedents.
Arvind
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
