Single-judge court heard a bail application under Section 439 CrPC for an accused facing rape and POCSO charges. The applicant alleged false implication due to age discrepancy and revenge. The court found the prosecution case consistent and rejected bail, holding it not a fit case for release.
Bail application rejected; applicant to remain in jail.
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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42530 of 2021
Applicant :- Suhail Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
The Court is convened through video conferencing.
Sri Mukesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel appears for the first informant who states that he has filed his vakalatnama in the office on 03.02.2022. The same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about the same.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Suhail , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 283 of 2021, under Sections 376(3) IPC and 3, 4 (2) POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Lisari Gate, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant has falsely stated that the prosecutrix is aged about 14 years as the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut has in his certificate dated 02.07.2021 opined the age of the prosecutrix to be about 18 years and as such she is a major. It is argued that there is a variations in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the first informant with regards to place of occurrence.
Learned counsel has further argued that even the date of incident has been changed by the prosecutrix in both of her statements. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the first informant just to take revenge. The first informant is the father of the prosecutrix. It is argued that the applicant and the prosecutrix were in a love affair and they wanted to marry each other but the first informant saw them
and caught hold of them and then the present First Information Report has been lodged. It is argued that the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not support the prosecution case as there is no opinion regarding any recent sexual assault on her. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.07.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per the First Information Report, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix she is about 14 years and as such is a minor. It is argued that the prosecutrix has in both her statements stated about the applicant committing rape upon her. It is argued that even in the First Information Report, the applicant is named and there is an allegation against him. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations of his committing rape upon the prosecutrix. The prosecution case in so far as naming and the role of the applicant is concerned, is consistent throughout. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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.
Order Date :- 4.2.2022 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail during trial in connection with charges of rape and POCSO offences.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Suhail
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
