Allahabad High Court
Ajit Kumar @ Dharmpal vs State Of U.P. on 10 October, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194707 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27219 of 2019 Applicant :- Ajit Kumar @ Dharmpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hiralal,Roopesh Kumar Nigam,Udantika Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Roopesh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for he State and perused the material on record.
3. Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant is not present.
4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ajit Kumar @ Dharmpal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.368 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli.
5. The F.I.R. of the present matter was lodged on 24.11.2018 by Premnarayan Ram against the applicant and Satish Kumar alleging therein that on 13.11.2018 his daughter aged about 16 years had gone to ease herself outside but did not return back. She was searched a lot wherein Shyamdei Devi of the village told him that the applicant on the motorcycle of his brother-in-law and his brother-in-law Satish were seen taking his daughter. The informant then went to the house of the Ajit but he was also not present. The family members of Ajit are also not in the village. They are living in Faridabad. The F.I.R. be lodged against Ajit and Satish for alluring and enticing her away.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim went with the applicant out of her own sweet will. It is argued that she in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. states that she went with the applicant and solemnized marriage and then lived in a rented room like his wife. There was physical relationship between her and the applicant. It is argued that ossification test of the victim opined her age to be 17 years. It is argued that the present case is a case of consent. It is further argued that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. changes the versions and states of the applicant and the co-accused forcibly taking her away and then the applicant committing rape upon her after giving her some intoxicating material and she becoming unconscious. It is argued that the victim has changed the version under pressure of the family and the police just in order to falsely implicate and harass him. It is argued while placing supplementary affidavit dated 08.10.2021 that in the trial three prosecution witnesses have been examined but trial has not been concluded and as such the applicant be released on bail. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-16 and is in jail since 26.12.2018.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated of the applicant establishing physical relationship with her. While placing annexure no. C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit it is argued that as per High School Marksheet date of birth of the victim is 06.8.2002 and as such she was aged about 16 years and 3 months at the time of incident and was minor. Therefore, the bail application of the applicant be rejected.
8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The victim as per High School Marksheet is aged about 16 years and 3 months and as such she was minor at the time of incident and consent of a minor is of no worth. The trial is under progress in which three prosecution witnesses have been examined including the victim who has supported the prosecution case. She is P.W.-1 therein.
9. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Naresh