The Court allowed a bail application filed by Ravi Kumar Bind, challenging a POCSO charge involving alleged age discrepancy and questioning the victim's age determination process, finding merit in the submissions without adjudicating merits.
Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13287 of 2022
Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Bind,S. Kamal Akhtar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Shri Pritam Patel, learned brief holder for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2021 at Police Station Jigna District Mirzapur under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2022.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur on 28.02.2022.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 14 years. The Adhar Card records the age of the victim as 18 years. The victim is infact a major. However, medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the established medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done by the prosecution as it would falsify the prosecution case. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The F.I.R. is a result of such opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant of her own volition. Subsequently, she got married to the applicant voluntarily in Mumbai in the presence of one lawyer. The two rented an accommodation in Mumbai and since then they have been residing together as a couple. Certain aggravated and false allegations regarding use of force have been made by the victim only at the behest of her parents only to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim and to save the failing prosecution. The material contradictions in the victim's statements discredit the prosecution case. Medical evidence which corroborates the allegation of rape or forceful assault has not been produced by the prosecution. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite
imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case
Shri Pritam Patel, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.
I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar Bind be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 8.7.2022 Dhananjai
Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.11 17:34:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case punishable under the POCSO Act.
Whether medical examination to determine the victim's age was conducted by the prosecution.
Whether the victim's statements indicate consent and that the marriage was voluntary.
Ravi Kumar Bind
State of U.P.
Another
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
