Allowed

Ankit Yadav @ Ravi Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023BAIL/5065/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a bail application challenging charges under IPC and POCSO. The primary contention was the victim's actual age, supported by her statement asserting majority, contradicting the minor status essential for POCSO jurisdiction. The court also noted inconsistencies in the FIR and lack of medical evidence corroborating rape.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on the existing sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and to appear before the trial court.

Ankit Yadav @ Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170044

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5065 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Yadav @ Ravi Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar,Ajay Kumar Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Afshan Shafaut

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

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. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.132 of 2022 at Police Station-Marka, District-Banda under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

¶7

The applicant is on interim bail granted by this Court on 14.07.2023.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Ajay Kumar Giri, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Ms. Afshan Shafaut, learned counsel on behalf of the victim's family as part of

¶9

the free legal aid granted by the High Court Legal Services Committee upon recommendation of the Child Welfare Committee, and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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:

¶13

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

¶14

(b) 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 and 11 months are unreliable.

¶15

(c) The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is above 18 years of age.

¶16

(d) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination

¶17

test) records that the victim is 16 years of age.

¶18

(e) 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.

¶19

Delay of 5 months in lodgement of the F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶20

The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶21

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

¶22

The victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has asserted that she eloped with the applicant of her own volition and accompanied him to various places including Mau and Rajapur. Thereafter the two travelled to Surat by train.

¶23

The victim has further asserted that she got married to the applicant of her own volition. The two have since been residing together as a married couple and she wants to continue stay with her husband.

¶24

No allegation of abduction, wrongful detention and commission of rape has been made by the victim against

¶25

the applicant in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶26

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

¶27

The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at various public places but never raised an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party.

¶28

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

¶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 application is allowed.

¶32

Let the applicant- Ankit Yadav @ Ravi Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on the sureties

¶33

already furnished while being enlarged on interim bail. 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. Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Pravin

¶36

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Yadav @ Ravi Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Yadav @ Ravi Yadav 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

Raja Alias Shadab Kahn Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Laxmikant Vs State of U.P.

Dheerendra @ Shiva Yadav Vs State of U.P.