High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a bail application for an accused charged with rape and kidnapping under IPC and POCSO. The court rejected the bail plea, observing the victim's statement supported the prosecution version and the accused was named in the FIR.
Bail application rejected. Applicant not enlarged on bail.
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. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4738 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanideval Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hari Narayan Singh
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard Shri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Hari Narayan Singh as well as Shri Pankaj Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Sunnideval with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 791 of 2020, under 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Khorabad, District-Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/ applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Perusal of statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim, it is clear that the victim had gone with the applicant on her own will and was not kidnapped as such she is a consenting party. There is major contradiction in the statements of the victim which makes the place of occurrence doubtful. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. As per the ossification test, the victim is aged about 17 years. Therefore, the accused/ applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 20.11.2020, he has no previous criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.
Per contra learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail
and submitted that there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidences once the applicant is released on bail. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the accused is named in the F.I.R. The victim who as per the medical as well as educational certificate is a minor girl, in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution version and stated that she was kidnapped by the accused from her house and was kept in a house situated in a garden where the accused-applicant committed rape. Therefore, the accused/ applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail in any manner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is named accused. The victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly supported the prosecution case. As per the education certificate, the date of birth of the victim is shown to be 14.02.2008 as such on the date of occurrence the victim was a minor girl aged about 13 years. It is well settled law that there may be variation of one and half year to two years either side in the medical certificate, and if there is evidence regarding age of the victim in that case the age recorded through medical examination would be reduced to that side.
Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, nature and manner of commission of offence and evidence regarding the complicity of applicant, no case for bail, at this stage, is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .
Order Date :- 16.3.2023 S.Verma
Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of the trial for offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the contradictions in victim's statements and medical evidence make out a case for bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunnideval
State of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
