Allowed

Rishabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023BAIL/23067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application for the applicant, accused of offences under IPC and POCSO. The court based its decision on material contradictions regarding the victim's age, inconsistencies in her statements, and the absence of medical evidence corroborating resistance or injury.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with conditions against tampering and ensuring appearance in court.

Rishabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167703

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23067 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rishabh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kanchan Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA for the State 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 the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.780 of 2021 at Police Station-Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2022.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 09.11.2022.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

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

¶11

The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 13 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶12

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:

¶13

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

¶14

(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 13 years are unreliable.

¶15

(iii) The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 13 years of age.

¶16

(iv) The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶17

has stated that she is 14 years of age.

¶18

(iv). The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 16 years of age.

¶19

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 parameters as per latest medical protocol which would establish the majority of the victim has been excluded from consideration in the medical report. The medical report is flawed. In fact the victim is a major.

¶20

The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶21

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

¶22

The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further admitted that she accompanied the applicant to Ahmedabad of her own volition. They travelled by car. She has further stated that they had established consensual physical relationship and stayed in a hotel at Ahmedabad.

¶23

The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at public places. She did not raise an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.

¶24

Subsequently, false and aggravated allegations have

¶25

been made by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim and to save the failing prosecution.

¶26

Major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim before the doctor as well as the recitals in the F.I.R. discredit the prosecution case.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶30

13 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.

¶32

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

¶33

application is allowed.

¶34

Let the applicant- Rishabh Yadav 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:-

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 Dhananjai

¶38

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

Rishabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishabh Yadav 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

Nayab Ali Khan Vs Smt. Kamla Kapoor and 3 Ors.

Union of India Thru G.M. Vs Smt. Kesar Devi

Ganga Prasad and Others Vs Satya Dev and Others

Dharm Singh Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Vinod Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Gulfam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others