Allowed

Rishabh Kumar @ Tinku v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023BAIL/20960/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant charged under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court relied on arguments disputing the victim's age and the lack of medical evidence corroborating the alleged act, granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in amounts satisfactory to the court below.

Rishabh Kumar @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148603

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20960 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Rishabh Kumar @ Tinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Raj Singh,Sunita Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saral Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I 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 Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.

¶7

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.06 of 2022 at Police Station-Ekdil, District- Etwah under Sections 376D, 452 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 11.01.2022.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 24.03.2022.

¶9

The following arguments made by Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel assisted by Shri Dev Raj Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be

¶10

satisfactorily refuted by and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant contests the minority of the victim as depicted in the prosecution case.

¶12

The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 15 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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 records disclosing her age as 15 years and 6 months are unreliable.

¶16

(iii) The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 15 and a half years and 15 years respectively.

¶17

(iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is 15 years of

¶18

age.

¶19

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

¶20

The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶21

The applicant and the victim was found together in a compromising position at her house.

¶22

The F.I.R. was lodged to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim and to cause a breach in their relationship.

¶23

The incident occurred at the house of the victim but there is no sign of any forced entry.

¶24

The victim did not resist the applicant nor did she raise any alarm. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.

¶25

Medical report does not record any sign of struggle or injury which would have ensued had the victim resisted the applicant.

¶26

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

¶27

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶28

The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated

¶29

11.10.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11631 of 2022.

¶30

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

¶31

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶32

Let the applicant- Rishabh Kumar @ Tinku 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:-

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Order Date :- 25.7.2023 Dhananjai

¶36

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rishabh Kumar @ Tinku v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishabh Kumar @ Tinku 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

Aashiq Ali Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Irfan @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Boby Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Aamir Alias Sukka Vs State of U.P.