Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Rawat vs State Of U.P. on 16 July, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- BAIL No. - 409 of 2021 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Rawat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Shukla,Gyanoday Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Perusal of the record shows that notice was issued to opposite party no.2 vide order dated 18.1.2021. As per office report dated 14.6.2021, notice has been served on the legal heir of opposite party no.2. Perusal of the report of the C.J.M., Pratapgarh dated 22.2.2021 shows that notice has been served on the legal heir and from the perusal of police report dated 8.2.2021 it is apparent that notice has been served upon Omkar Rawat, father of opposite party no.2. However, no one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.
Applicant- Sunil Kumar Rawat seeks bail in Case Crime No. 179 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Patti, District- Pratapgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire prosecution story as stated is false and incorrect. It is argued that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit has stated that she knew the applicant since the last five years and was in love with him and used to talk to him on phone. On the day of the incident i.e. 13.7.2020, she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will without any pressure and performed court marriage in Raebareli and they were living as husband and wife and had established physical relationship after that. It is argued that the victim has stated that the age as mentioned in her high school marksheet is 20.7.2005, whereas, she is 18 years of age and is a major. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court Annexure No.6 which is of the Department of Radiology and has placed before the Court that after radiological examination the victim has been opined to be above 18 years of age and as such she is a major. It is argued that the victim has married the applicant out of her own sweet will and the implication of the applicant is false. It is argued that the date of birth of the victim in the high school marksheet is recorded incorrectly. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit as mentioned in para 20 of the affidavit. Thus the applicant, who is in jail since 23.7.2020, may be enlarged on bail during trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail and argued that the first information report in the case was registered under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. wherein it was specifically mentioned that the date of birth of the victim is 20.7.2005. It is argued that the application was given by the father of the victim before the Child Welfare Committee in which an order was passed on 28.7.2020 handing over the custody of the victim to her father. The copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure No.7 to the affidavit. It is argued that in the said order the Investigating Officer had produced the high school marksheet of the victim and even in the same her date of birth was mentioned as 20.7.2005 and as such she was aged about 15 years and 4 months at the time of incident and was a minor. It is argued that since the victim was a minor, the consent of a minor is of no worth. Learned A.G.A. has further argued that the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim clearly shows that offences are made out and there was no consent of victim for the relationship and even for marriage. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, it is apparent that the victim as per the first information report is stated to be about 15 years of age and even as per high school marksheet which was produced by the Investigating Officer before the Child Welfare Committee her date of birth was recorded as 20.7.2005 and as such she was minor. The consent of a minor for the incident in question is of no worth.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to consider the prayer for bail of the applicant. The prayer for bail is declined.
The application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 16.7.2021 Vikas/-