Allowed

Aman Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022/9924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused involved in offences under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The court relied on contradictions between victim statements, lack of medical evidence for rape, and the applicant's substantial period of detention to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

Aman Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9924 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Aman Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Suman Lata,Anita Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice as per the office report dated 21.10.2021, but till date neither any vakalatnama nor any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. It appears that opposite party No. 2 is not interested to contest the case, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed with the matter for final hearing.

¶6

Counter affidavit on behalf of State is on the record.

¶7

Ms. Suman Lata, the learned counsel for the applicant while denying the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State submits that applicant is in detention since 24.04.2021.

¶8

Heard Ms. Suman Lata, the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The applicant, Aman Kumar Maurya , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raibareli.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case due to village rivalry. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, took place. Initially F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. against applicant. When the victim was recovered her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she has stated that she and applicant loves each other, and they want to marry, the applicant made sexual relations several times with her on the promise of solemnizing marriage with her, her family members were not ready to marry her with the applicant, therefore, she went with the applicant to Ahmedabad on her own sweet will and lived there as husband and wife. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she went with the applicant on her own sweet will, applicant has not

¶11

made any sexual relation with her forcibly, he has not committed her rape, she wants to live with the applicant and she does not want to go to her parental home.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that allegation of rape levelled against the applicant by the prosecution got demolished as the medical report of the victim does not support such allegation, wherein the concerned doctor found neither any external or internal injury on the private parts or on all over body of the victim, nor any spermatozoa was seen in her vaginal smear. The doctor has opined that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. The radiological age of the victim was found to be 16 to 17 years. Taking benefit of two years, either side, the victim knows consequences very well. The entire prosecution story has been made with malafide intention as family members of the victim do not want to marry the victim with the applicant. The parties are consenting to each other, as they love each other, the victim went on her own sweet will with the applicant to Ahmedabad and lived there as husband and wife, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

¶13

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-19 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2021 and has already undergone a substantial period of detention. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is involved in a heinous crime, but has not disputed that both the parties appears to be consenting.

¶15

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the

¶16

evidence, considering the fact that there is a vast contradiction in the statements of victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. with the version of the F.I.R.; the victim has admitted that she loves applicant and she has not made any allegation of rape or forceful sexual assault against the applicant in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; the victim admits that she went with the applicant to Ahmedabad on her own sweet will and they lived together as husband and wife; medical report of the victim does not support the allegation of rape as no external or internal injury found on her private parts; as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant, Aman Kumar Maurya, involved in Case Crime No. 100 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raibareli, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶19

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶21

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶25

framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶30

Order Date :- 2.8.2022 Mustaqeem

¶31

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.05 16:40:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aman Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, District Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Parshuram Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home Deptt, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow

Vijay Pratap @ Puttur Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. through,Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko

Nirdesh S/O Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Sujeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.