Court rejected bail application in a criminal case involving IPC sections 363, 366, 376D and POCSO Act, holding no case for bail existed due to gravity of allegations and age dispute regarding prosecutrix.
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.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36329 of 2022
Applicant :- Jay Shankar Seth @ Raj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari
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. 0196 of 2018, under Sections 363 366, 376D of IPC and Section 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 161 CrPC stated that she accompanied with the present applicant by her own accord. As per the medical report, the age of the victim is 16 to 17 years. In this respect, the law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being minor cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the victim was major at the time of occurrence and she was a consenting party. It is further submitted that the statement of PW-1 has been recorded. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.02.2019 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 learned AGA assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail submitted that as per the school certificate the date of birth of the victim is 03.08.2005, therefore, she was minor at the time of occurrence. It is also submitted that the statement of victim under Section 161 CrPC has corroborated the version of the prosecution and in the statement she stated that the present applicant forcefully abducted her and without her consent made physical relation. In the first information report the age of the victim is narrated to be 13 years. The victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC has narrated her age to be 14 years.
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 :- 25.1.2023 Virendra
Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Jay Shankar Seth @ Raj
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
