Criminal bail application rejected. Applicant charged with abduction, kidnapping, rape, and sexual activities against a minor under P.O.C.S.O. Act. Court found no case made out for bail given the gravity of offences and disputed age of victim.
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.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27074 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Milan@ Pawan Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Garun Pal Singh,Mukesh Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 154 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot 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. Victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has mentioned her age to be 19 years and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated her age to be 18 years while she refused to undergo for medical examination. It is further submitted that the victim went with the applicant according to her consent and they have married with each other and were living as husband and wife. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2022 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 as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that as per the school certificate her date of birth is 10.01.2006, therefore, on the date of occurrence she was a minor girl of 15 years of age, thus, her consent has no significance in view of the provisions of Section 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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 :- 3.1.2023 Mohit
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Milan@ Pawan Kumar
State Of U.P.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain
Mohit Kumar Kushwaha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
