In a bail application regarding rape and POCSO charges, the court rejected the plea, noting the gravity of the offence and severity of punishment despite arguments regarding FIR delay and medical report inconsistencies.
Bail application rejected.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106742
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22988 of 2021
Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 264 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 120B I.P.C., Section 6, 17 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sumerpur, District-Hamirpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted that the first information report of this case lodged after a delay of nine days but no explanation has been given for such delay. The victim is not recovered from the possession of the applicant. During her medical examination no internal or external injury was observed in her additional statement the victim has stated that as per school certificate her date of birth is 25.04.2008. The victim has been recovered after four months of the incident. Therefore, her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. The victim is major in her ossification test, was ensured by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that applicant is in jail since 25.12.2020 having no criminal history and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.c. made specific allegations of committing rape on her against the applicant. As per the school certificate the victim was a minor girl at the time of the incident.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and gravity of offence and severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.
Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding on the merit and shall not prejudice the trial.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023 Ruhi
Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case punishable under Sections 376(3), 366, 363 IPC and Sections 6, 17 POCSO Act.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of medical evidence negate the gravity of the charge for bail purposes.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dinesh Kumar Verma
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
Ruhi Hasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
