The Single Bench allowed a bail application filed by an accused under IPC and POCSO sections. The court found merit in arguments regarding inconsistencies in the victim's statement and absence of medical reports, granting bail subject to strict conditions.
Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties upon fulfillment of strict non-tampering conditions.
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. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22589 of 2019 Applicant :- Raju Alias Rajeev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 1474 of 2016 at Police Station Jahanabad, District Pilibhit under Sections 452, 323, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2017.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, on 27.03.2019.
Sri Satendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim is incorrectly depicted as 16 years in the FIR only to aggravate the offence and to ensure indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. However no medical examination to determine the correct age as per duly established medical protocol was got done by expert doctors from a reputed institute as the same would falsify the prosecution case. The victim and the applicant were intimate. However their relationship was vehemently opposed by her family members to get her marriage fix to another person. The FIR was registered at the behest of her parents. The victim in her statement before the doctor stated that she was to get married within a period of one month. This also establishes her majority. There are
material contradictions in the FIR and the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim in her statement and FIR has nominated three persons who forcibly entered the house. However the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she falsely implicated the other two persons. In the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. depicts a completely different version where she raised an alarm causing her sister in law to attack the applicant. Medical examination report to corroborate rape has not been produced.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant resides in Pilibhit and is not a flight risk. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who has cooperate with the police investigation. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
Shri Markandey Singh, learned AGA 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- Raju Alias Rajeev 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 any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or 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 :- 21.12.2022 Pravin
Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite pending charges under POCSO and rape sections.
Whether the contradictions in the victim's statement and lack of medical report weaken the prosecution case sufficiently.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Raju Alias Rajeev
State of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
Pravin Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
