Allowed

Shri Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2023BAIL/54924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed bail to the applicant accused under IPC and POCSO sections by finding insufficient evidence, citing inconsistencies in the victim's age and medical report, and noting procedural delays, without making final observations on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions appearing before trial court and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174640

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54924 of 2021 Applicant :- Shri Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Pushkar,Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

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.

¶6

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2021 at Police Station- Palimukimpur, District- Aligarh under Sections 363, 366, 376-(2)(झ ) IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 17.07.2021.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 24.11.2021.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle

¶9

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 in the F.I.R. of 14 years 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

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

¶14

(ii) The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is above 15 years of age.

¶15

(iii). The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 15 years of age.

¶16

Two submissions are made in regard to the aforesaid medical report. Firstly, the range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Secondly, the relevant scientific criteria as per latest medical protocol which would establish the majority of the victim has been excluded from consideration in the medical report. The

¶17

medical report is flawed. In fact the victim is a major.

¶18

The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶19

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

¶20

The FIR has been registered at the behest of the parents only to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim.

¶21

The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she left her house because of domestic quarrels and after her mother assaulted her. No allegation of commission of rape or establishing physical relations has been made in the said statement against the applicant by the victim.

¶22

The victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she accompanied the applicant to Kanpur and stayed in the truck which the applicant drives.

¶23

False and aggravated allegations were made by the victim subsequently in her statement under Section 164 CrPC against the applicant at the behest of her parents only to save the failing prosecution case and deflect attention from her own conduct.

¶24

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

¶25

No medical to corroborate the commission of rape has been produced by the prosecution.

¶26

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who has cooperated in the investigation and had joined the trial proceedings.

¶27

The trial is moving at a snail's pace and and shows no sign of early conclusion. Till date only one prosecution witness has been examined. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

¶28

Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to an indefinite detention of the applicant without any evidence to implicate him in the offence.

¶29

The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.

¶30

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

¶31

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶32

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

¶33

Let the applicant- Shri Ram be released on bail in the

¶34

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:-

¶35

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶36

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶37

Order Date :- 29.8.2023 Pravin

¶38

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

Shri Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram 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

Abdul Wahab Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Rao Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.