Virendra Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

Virendra Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the bail application was rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Virendra Parihar should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2022 (Sections 363, 376-A, B/109 of IPC and Section 17/6 POCSO Act), Police Station Redhar, District Jalun.

Court's answer

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and gravity of the offence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail and rejected the bail application.

Key takeaways

Any observation made in the order shall not be treated as a finding on merit and shall not prejudice the trial.obiter¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mayank Kumar Jain, J.) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14721 of 2023, decided 11.5.2023 (Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:101609): bail application rejected. Applicant Virendra Parihar, stated to be the father of named accused Abhishek, sought bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2022, Police Station Redhar, District Jalun, under Sections 363, 376-A, B/109 of IPC and Section 17/6 POCSO Act. Per the prosecution, the victim was 11 years 6 months old; in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement she alleged the applicant took her with co-accused Abhishek by bus to Urai and thence to New Delhi, where Abhishek committed rape upon her, and eye-witness Manoj Kumar stated he saw the applicant driving the motorcycle with the prosecutrix and Abhishek. Defence contentions: the applicant was charge-sheeted merely on the prosecutrix's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; no allegation of rape or other act was assigned to him; named accused Raghvendra, Umashanker and Dayashankar were exonerated after investigation; he was in custody since 16.01.2023 with no criminal history. Considering the nature of evidence and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found the applicant not entitled to bail and rejected the application, directing that its observations shall not be treated as findings on merit nor prejudice the trial.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101609

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14721 of 2023

Applicant :- Virendra Parihar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput,Kapil Dev Singh Rathore,Vikram Dev Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abida Syed,Vijay Singh Sengar

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Abida Syed, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 89 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376-A, B/109 of IPC and Section 17/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Redhar, District Jalun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that applicant is the father of the accused Abhishek who is named in the first information report, against whom allegation of committing rape is levelled by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that after the conclusion of the investigation named accused Raghvendra, Umashanker and Dayashankar have been exonerated, therefore, the prosecution version as described in the first information report has collapsed in itself. Merely on the basis of the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the charge sheet came to be filed against the applicant. There is no allegation of committing rape against the applicant and no other act is assigned to the applicant. It is also submitted that there is no allegation of enticement against the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.01.2023 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that the age of the victim at the time of incident was 11 years 6 months and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix specifically averred that applicant along with other accused Abhishek took her to Urai by a bus thereafter from Urai to New Delhi where coaccused Abhishek committed rape upon her. It is also submitted that eye witness Manoj Kumar had given statement that he saw the applicant on motorcycle sitting with the prosecutrix along with the co-accused Abhishek and the applicant was driving the motorcycle.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for the bail, therefore, the bail application is rejected.

Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding on the merit and shall not prejudice the trial.

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Mohit

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad