Allowed

Shadir Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023BAIL/56415/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Shadir Ahmad, an applicant accused of rape under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The court found the prosecution case discredited by contradictions regarding the victim's age and admitted intimacy, noting a lack of medical evidence for rape.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

Shadir Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152126

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56415 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Shadir Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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.232 of 2022 at Police Station-Dhampur, District-Binor under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2022.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 11.11.2022.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar

¶9

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 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

(i) There are material contradictions in various prosecution documents relating to the victim's age.

¶14

(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 16 years and 6 months 15 days are unreliable.

¶15

(iii) The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 17 years of age.

¶16

(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

¶17

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.

¶19

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

¶20

The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant to New Delhi and has got married to him of her own volition. The two have been staying together as a married couple.

¶21

No allegation of abduction, wrongful detention and commission of rape has been made by the victim against the applicant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶22

The material contradictions 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.

¶23

The victim voluntarily accompanied with the applicant to various places. She was never confined or bound down. She never raised an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party.

¶24

No medical evidence to corroborate the commission of rape by the applicant has been produced by the

¶25

prosecution.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Let the applicant- Shadir Ahmad 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:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 28.7.2023 Ashish Tripathi

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shadir Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadir Ahmad 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

Aman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Angad Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khushiram Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Dev Singh Prajapati @ Manchali Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home