Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186390

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39793 of 2023

Applicant :- Ravindra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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.88 of 2022 at Police Station-Ahar, District-Bulandshahar under Section 363, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 04.08.2022.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 09.08.2023.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Vibhendu Mishra,

¶10

learned counsel holding brief of Shri Ram Krishna Mishra, 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:

¶11

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

¶12

The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 14 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶13

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:

¶14

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

¶15

(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 14 years, 10 months and 22 days are unreliable.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

The victim and the applicant were intimate and had a consensual physical relationship.

¶19

The F.I.R. was got lodged after the said relationship got exposed and to deflect attention from the victim's conduct.

¶20

The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted that she accompanied the applicant to various public places of her own volition. She further stated that both of them swam together in Ganga river and thereafter they climbed a tree and spent a night.

¶21

The other three girls who were going to school with the victim have also stated that she accompanied the applicant of her own free will.

¶22

No allegation of abduction, wrongful detention or commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has been made by the latter in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶23

The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at public places. She did

¶24

not raise an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.

¶25

Subsequently, false and aggravated allegations have 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 case.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶29

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

application is allowed.

¶33

Let the applicant- Ravindra Singh 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 :- 26.9.2023 Dhananjai

¶37

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Anjali Vs State of U.P.

Mewa Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ved Prakash @ Chintu Vs State of U.P.

Brahmpal Vs State of U.P.