Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024BAIL/726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected in case under Sec. 376, 452 IPC and POCSO Act for alleged rape of a 12-year-old. Court declined bail despite victim's admission of prior relationship, citing minor status and radiological age of 14, while leaving final decision post-victim examination.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant at liberty to revive plea once victim examined before trial court.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17910

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 726 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhijat Pratap Singh,Ashutosh Rawat,Surendra Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

No one has appeared for the complainant.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.165 of 2022 under Section 376, 452 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao.

¶9

In the F.I.R. it is alleged that on 26.5.2022 while the informant went in the tilak of his sister and no one present at home, while they returned in the night he saw a boy jumping out from his house and ran away then he called police on 112 number. In the morning his wife told him that his daughter has been raped, who is 12 years old.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against the applicant, however, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has admitted that she is in relationship with the applicant for the past two years and both are friends and sexual relations

¶11

between them on that day were made consensually.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that only because elder brother of the victim has seen them the F.I.R. has been lodged. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of the victim are not corroborated by medical examination report or any other corroborative evidence. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that the victim is 12 years old and as per the radiological examination she is 14 years old. He submits that the victim is minor and in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C allegation of rape has been leveled against the applicant. Consent of the minor who is aged about 12-14 years, is meaning-less. There is no educational record of the victim.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

Considering the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. so also the radiological age of the victim, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, the bail application is rejected.

¶15

The applicant is at liberty to revive his bail plea once the victim has been examined before the trial court.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.2.2024

¶17

Madhu

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Snehlata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Shivam Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. U.P. Lko.

Naveen Jayaswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Suhel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others