Allahabad High Court
Sripal@ Gussu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 July, 2022
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21416 of 2022 Applicant :- Sripal@ Gussu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.251 of 2021 at Police Station-Chhata, District-Mathura under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 06.01.2022.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura on 07.03.2022.
Shri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim was falsely recorded as 13 years in the F.I.R. only to implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his indefinite imprisonment. As per the medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim, she is about 15 years of age. The victim is in fact a major. Learned counsel for the applicant made two submissions in regard to the aforesaid medical report. Firstly, the range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Secondly, the medical report is flawed. The latest medical protocol and relevant scientific criteria were excluded from consideration in the medical report.
Shri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the F.I.R. arises out of a family dispute. The victim has not made any allegation of rape in her initial and second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. False and aggravated allegations were made against the applicant by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her family to save the failing prosecution case. However, subsequently in her later statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she resiled from the aforesaid stand and did not allege that the applicant committed rape with her. 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. Medical evidence which corroborates the allegation of rape or forceful assault has not been produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Mayank, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Sripal @ Gussu 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 concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi