Allowed

Pintu Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/12989/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court allowed bail application for applicant detained under IPC and POCSO. Court noted applicant's absence but relied on amicus curiae submissions contesting victim's minority and alleging false allegations, ordering release with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

Pintu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176995

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12989 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pintu Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is called out. None appears for the applicant to press the bail application. The names of the learned counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list.

¶7

Learned counsel at the Bar has been requested to assist the Court in the matter. This Court in the light of the holding in Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18536 of 2020 is not dismissing the case for non prosecution. Learned members at the Bar have volunteered to assist the Court pro bono in the highest tradition of the profession. The Court has appointed learned counsel as amicus curiae.

¶8

Learned AGA 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

¶9

Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.

¶10

By means of the second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2022 at Police Station-Khorabar, District-Gorakhpur under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 30.06.2022.

¶11

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 19.07.2022.

¶12

The following arguments made by learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶13

Learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant contests the minority of the victim as depicted in the prosecution case.

¶14

The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 12 years of age in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶15

Learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others

¶16

(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) on the following grounds:

¶17

(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.

¶18

(ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. The school certificate showing her age as 12 years is not reliable.

¶19

(iii) The victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 13 years of age.

¶20

(iv) The Aadhar card of the victim depicts her age as 22 years.

¶21

(v). The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is about 18 years of age.

¶22

Two submissions are made in regard to the aforesaid medical report. Firstly, the range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Secondly, the relevant scientific criteria as per latest medical protocol which would establish the majority of the victim has been excluded from consideration in the medical report. The medical

¶23

report is flawed. In fact the victim is a major.

¶24

The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶25

The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship.

¶26

The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has also asserted that she eloped with the applicant to Mumbai and has got married to him of her own volition. The victim has also disclosed that she is an expectant mother.

¶27

No allegation of abduction, inappropriate behaviour or commission or rape by the applicant with the victim has been made by her in the aforesaid statement.

¶28

False and aggravated allegations were made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the victim at the behest of her parents to save the failing prosecution case and to deflect attention from her own conduct.

¶29

Major inconsistencies in the FIR, the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

¶30

The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at various public places but never raised an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that

¶31

she was a consenting party.

¶32

Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.

¶33

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶34

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶35

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶36

Let the applicant- Pintu Chauhan 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:-

¶37

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶38

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is

¶39

exempted.

¶40

The Court has been informed that the lawyers in district-Gorakhpur are striking work. Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by striking lawyers.

¶41

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Gorakhpur shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

¶42

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Gorakhpur for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above.

¶43

Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Vandit

¶44

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pintu Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakir Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepa Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others