Allahabad High Court
Bhola @ Ram Rahees vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 September, 2019
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34925 of 2019 Applicant :- Bhola @ Ram Rahees Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Bhola @ Ram Rahees, over Bail Application, as well as learned AGA, representing State of U.P. and perused the record.
By means of the present Bail Application, accused-applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 69 of 2019, under Section 323, 342, 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code, read with 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Khudfatehgarh, District Sambjal, is seeking enlargment on bail during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, which was registered on 8.6.2019, for offences, punishable, under Sections 323, 342 and 354 of IPC, and Section 7 & 8 of POSCO Act; subsequently, Section 376 of IPC was also added, whereas, a reference was there for DNA test, but the report of the same is not there, even then Section 376 of IPC has been added; prosecutorix was said to be of 12 years of age in the first information report, but after seven days' delay, statement, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded, which was with full of embellishment. Hence, bail, during trial has been prayed for.
Learned private counsel, appearing on behalf of the informant, as well as learned AGA, appearing for the State of U.P., have vehemently opposed this Bail Application with the contention that in first information report, age of prosecutorix was said to be 12 years, whereas in medical age determination, it has been held to be 10 years. She was subjected to rape by accused-applicant, as has been said in the statement of the victim, recorded, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Offence is very heinous. There is every likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, this Bail Application be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that occurrence was of 9.00 PM of 7.6.2019 and it was instantly reported on next day, i.e., 8.6.2019, in which allegations for offences, punishable under Sections 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, alongwith offences, under Sections 354 and 342 of IPC, were levelled. Prosecutorix's father, informant, was instantly examined, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which he has categorically said about mental agony suffered by his minor daughter due to this occurrence, who has been subjected to those offences. Thenafter, her statement, under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which specific accusation of sexual assault by accused-applicant, after tying-up her hand and locking inside the house, has been said by the victim. In her medical age determination test, she has been held to be 10 years' of age.
Under all above, facts and circumstances, but without commenting on the merit of trial, and looking to the heinousness of offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence, during trial, it is not a fit case for grant of bail.
Bail Application, being devoid of merits, stands rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.9.2019 bgs/