Dismissed

Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023BAIL/37042/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC dismissed an application for bail by the accused in a rape and POCSO case regarding a victim under 18 discharged by a false promise of marriage. The court held the applicant does not deserve indulgence despite lack of physical injury. Rejected application.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; no enlargement on bail.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182997

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37042 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Karan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Agrawal,Uttam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Uttam Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ranjot Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2023, under Sections 376 IPC, Sections 5(L)/6 POCSO Act & Sections 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Indergarh, District Kannauj druing the pendency of trial.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present application for bail has been served upon first informant/opposite party no.4 on 12.08.2023. However, in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of first informant/opposite party no.4 to oppose this application for bail.

¶10

Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 29.03.2023 was lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant namely; X and was registered as Case

¶11

Crime No.84 of 2023, under Sections 376, 120-B IPC, Police Station Indergarh, District Kannauj. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons namely; Karan (applicant herein) and his wife have been nominated as named accused.

¶12

In brief, the gravamen of the allegations made in aforesaid F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused-applicant (Karan) repeatedly dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix for the last five years and also prepared obscene video of the prosecutrix on account of which, thereat and coercion were extended to the prosecutrix for further maintaining physical relations with him.

¶13

After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Same is on record at page 26 of the paper book. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has clearly and categorically stated that by extending a false promise of marriage, applicant repeatedly and continuously dislodged her modesty by establishing physical relations. The factum of the marriage of the accused-applicant was not disclosed to the prosecutrix. In spite of the fact that applicant is a married man, yet he indulged in adultary. Subsequent to above, the prosecutrix was requested for her internal medical examination. The doctor, who medically examined the prosecutrix, did not find any injury on her body, so as to denote commission of sexual assault. However, with regard to the private parts of the prosecutrix, the doctor has opined as follows " old torned healed ". The prosecutrix in her statement before the doctor, which was recorded before her internal examination was conducted, has rejoined her previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Ultimately, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Copy of same is on record at page 31 of the paper book, wherein also the prosecutrix has rejoined her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the prosecutrix and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have substantially supported the F.I.R. Two of the witnesses namely; Smt. Sanjo Devi and Shri Gautam have fairly stated relationship in between applicant and prosecutrix. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of applicant is fully established in the crime in question. He accordingly, submitted the charge-sheet dated 10.06.2023 against applicant, whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted whereas wife of applicant, co-accused has been exculpated.

¶15

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Attention of the Court was then invited to the F.I.R. and on basis thereof, he submits that it is an admitted case of the prosecutrix that her modesty was dislodged for the last five years prior to the date of lodging of the F.I.R. He, therefore, submits that the F.I.R. is highly belated. However, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statements of the prosecutrix, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained. It is thus contended that in view of above and the law laid down by the Apex Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 403 since the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained, therefore the present criminal proceedings itself cannot be maintained. Reference has also been made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.

¶16

442 of 2022 (Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another) decided on 27.07.2022, wherein the proceedings under Section 376 I.P.C. were quashed on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R.

¶17

It is then contended that the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence, inasmuch as, the doctor, who conducted the internal medical examination of the prosecutrix did not find any injury on her person, so as to denote commission of sexual assault.

¶18

With regard to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., before the doctor, who medically examined the prosecutrix and Section 164 Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for applicant contends that since medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence, therefore, no prosecution of applicant can be maintained on the basis of aforesaid statements.

¶19

Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 08.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than three and a half months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Sections 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted and therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶20

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for

¶21

bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as chargesheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The prosecutrix is a young girl aged about nineteen years on the date of lodging of the F.I.R. Applicant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix deliberately, forcibly and continuously. According to the learned A.G.A., applicant dislodged the modesty of the proseuctrix by extending a false promise of marriage. In case where the modesty of the prosecutrix has been dislodged by extending a false promise of marriage, accused is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court in view of law laid down by the following judgements of the Supreme Court:-

¶22

1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608.

¶23

2. Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108.

¶24

3. Sonu Vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 181.

¶25

4. Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649.

¶26

5. Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89.

¶27

The learned A.G.A. contends that the false promise of marriage was extended by the prosecutrix is further established from the recored inasmuch as, it is an admitted fact that the applicant is a married man, but the date of marriage of the applicant has not been disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the present application for bail. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phool Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 , the learned A.G.A.

¶28

submits that the prosecution of an accused in case of rape and sexual assault can be maintained even in the absence of medical evidence and on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. In the present case though medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence, inasmuch as, no signs were found on the body of deceased showing commission of deliberate sexual assault but when the statements of the prosecutrix referred to above are examined as a whole, they do not suffer from the vice of embellishment, contradiction or exaggeration, therefore, the same fall in the category of impeccable evidence, as such, the prosecution of applicant can definitely be maintained on the basis of aforesaid statements of the prosecutrix.

¶29

On the cumulative strength of above, the learned A.G.A. submits that even though applicant is a married man, he repeatedly and continuously dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix by extending the false promise of marriage, who admittedly was a young girl (seventeen years) on the date of lodging of the F.I.R. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶30

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made coupled with the fact that though there is delay of five years in lodging the F.I.R. but the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained sufficiently by the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as only when the prosecutrix came to know of the fact that the applicant is a married man, the criminal

¶32

proceedings were initiated by her, the date of marriage of applicant has deliberately not been disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the present application for bail, though the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence, inasmuch as, no injury was found on the body of prosecutrix denoting commission of deliberate sexual assault but the opinion of the doctor with regard to the private parts of the prosecutrix clearly supports the statements of the prosecutrix referred to above, the statements of the prosecutrix are clear, categorical and consistent, as such they are worthy of reliance, up to this stage, no such material could be pointed out by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record on the basis of which, the statements of the prosecutrix or the credibility of the prosecutrix could be doubted, there is nothing to suggest false or malicious prosecution of the applicant, therefore, irrespective of the submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶33

As a result, the application fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶34

It is accordingly rejected .

¶35

Order Date :- 20.9.2023/Zafar

¶36

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh 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

Naushad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahbaz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banta Alias Ramjeet Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nikit Alias Aditya Vs State of U.P.

Vatsal Varshney Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.