Allowed

Rajesh Sahani v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023BAIL/2761/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant after the counsel for the accused successfully raised doubts about the victim's age and the reliability of prosecution documents, citing a prior judgment and medico-logical records indicating the victim is a major.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Rajesh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151555

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2761 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Sahani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh,Pooja Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

This is the second bail application. Shri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Pooja, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person who does not have any effective pairokar. Hence many documents relating to age of the victim could not be referred to this Court when the first bail application was argued.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted leave to refer those documents to the Court during the course of hearing.

¶8

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.

¶9

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.51 of 2021 at Police Station-Raipur, District- Sonbhadra under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 31.04.2021.

¶10

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 29.09.2021.

¶11

The following arguments made by Shri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Pooja, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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:

¶15

(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the

¶16

victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.

¶17

(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 are unreliable.

¶18

(ii) The victim under in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 15 and 14 years of age respectively.

¶19

(iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is between 18-19 years of age.

¶20

(v) No medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was got done by the prosecution as it would establish the majority of the victim and falsify the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major.

¶21

The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶22

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

¶23

The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. The victim has asserted that she eloped with the applicant and got married to him of her own volition at a temple. The two travelled to various public places.

¶24

The victim was never confined or bound down in any

¶25

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.

¶26

The F.I.R. which was got lodged by the father of the victim asserts that the victim was mentally disturbed and had disappeared.

¶27

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

¶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 cooperate with the court 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 application is allowed.

¶33

Let the applicant- Rajesh Sahani 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:-

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Dhananjai

¶37

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

Rajesh Sahani v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sahani 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

Arun Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Rajiv Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Prakash Sharma @ Pappu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Hela Vs State of U.P.