High Court rejected a bail application filed by an accused in cases of enticement, intercourse with a minor, and rape under IPC and POCSO. The court held that no bail is available where a minor has supported the rape allegation.
Bail application rejected. Trial to be concluded within one year.
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. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14657 of 2022
Applicant :- Dilip Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 256 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 (3) IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar.
As per the prosecution version, the sister of the informant aged 17 years had gone to see durga pooja where the applicantaccused Dilip Yadav is stated to have enticed her and she came back with great difficulty. During the course of investigation, allegations surfaced under section 376 IPC also and, therefore, the provisions of POCSO Act have been added along with the provisions of SC/ST Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been falsely implicated in as much as there is delay of about seven days in lodgement of FIR and that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to village enmity. It is also argued that there is no explanation for the delay of seven days in lodgement of FIR.
The bail application is opposed by learned AGA who submits that the age of the victim is stated to be 16 years which also tallies with the determination of age in the medical examination. Submission is that consent of minor in such circumstances would not be of any help. It is also stated that plea of rape has been specifically alleged by the victim against the applicant and, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having considered the respective submissions and also the fact that the victim is a minor aged 16 years and has supported the allegation of rape against the applicant, I am of the view that without commenting upon the merits of the case to be tried at
the stage of trial, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within a period of one year. Liberty stands reserved to apply for bail afresh in the event the trial does not conclude within a period of 14 months.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022 Madhurima
Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.05.21 13:51:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving rape and sexual offenses against a minor.
Whether the alleged conspiracy/village enmity or lack of FIR explanation justifies bail at the preliminary stage.
Dilip Yadav
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Madhurima Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
