Allowed

Ram Murat Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023/3064/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant in a POCSO and rape case. The court noted the delay in FIR registration, conflicting witness testimony, victim's inability to provide a statement, and clean medical report regarding injuries and spermatozoa as grounds for bail under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Ram Murat Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3064 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Murat Chauhan

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi,Pankaj Kumar Dixit

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime no. 141 of 2019, under Section 376(2)F I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Kauriya, District Gonda.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 21.06.2017 against four named accused persons including the applicant and three unknown persons alleging that in the night of 11/12.06.2017 all the accused persons took away the informant's daughter aged about 15 years on a motorcycle and she was recovered in a state of unconsciousness in village Nauvanpurwa Mouja Johana on 13.06.2017. The informant further stated that his daughter told that the applicant and coaccused person Aatmaram and Nanke had committed gang rape on her.

¶10

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that while she was lying down in the night of 11.06.2017 at about 11:00 p.m., her Aunt woke her up and asked to go with her to the fields; that she went with her aunt, three to four persons were standing on the way, she asked her aunt to return and she started running away when her aunt

¶11

caught hold of her and shut her mouth and co-accused Aatmaram and Nanke, whom she described as her mama (maternal uncle) and the applicant, regarding whom she stated that she is son of her aunt's sister, caught hold of her and took her on motorcycle. She further stated that Bheem Singh is her brother, who is inside the jail because of dispute that had taken place with her aunt. She further stated that she has been abducted because of the aforesaid animosity. She stated that there is an animosity between her father and her uncle.

¶12

The doctor who had conducted the medico-legal examination of the victim, has recorded in the report that the victim was unable to give a statement about the alleged sexual assault. In the relevant tables given in the medico-legal examination report form, in which details of sexual violence were required to be filled, the doctor had ticked Don't know/DNK and in response to simple questions like as to whether the victim had changed under garments, she had replied 'DNK'.

¶13

No injury has been reported on any part of her body and no abnormality has been detected in her medico-legal examination. In the pathological examination also, no spermatozoa has been seen and the doctor has concluded that no definite opinion about sexual assault can be given.

¶14

During investigation, the police recorded statements of some independent witnesses, all of whom have stated that victim was present at her home and the F.I.R. has been lodged on false allegations.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. alleges that the informant's daughter had been abducted in the night of 11/12.06.2017, whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 21.06.2017; that the victim has stated that the co-accused

¶16

persons are her mama and the applicant is son of her aunt's sister and there is an animosity between her father and her uncle, and her brother is in jail because of the aforesaid animosity; that the victim did not gave any statement regarding the occurrence before the doctor who had conducted her medico-legal examination and in response most of the questions she said that she didn't know anything; that no injury has been found on any part of the victim's body and the allegations have not been supported even by the pathological examination report and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant Ram Murat Chauhan be released on bail in Case Crime no. 141 of 2019, under Section 376(2)F I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Kauriya, District Gonda, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 5.4.2023/Preeti.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Murat Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Murat Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko.

Vineet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rambali Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Government Lucknow

Chandan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Lal Ji @ Chotkau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I / Acb, Lko