Allahabad High Court
Dileep Kumar vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 2 May, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78855 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10537 of 2024 Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Tushar Shukla,Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Narayan Singh Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.271 of 2023 at Police Station-Mau, District-Chitrakoot under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 11.12.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 14.02.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Raj Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 17 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.
2.The age of the victim set out in the prosecution case is refuted in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) and on the following grounds:
(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.
(ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 17 years and 8 months, 9 days are unreliable.
(iii) The victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 20 years of age respectively.
(iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is about 20 years of age.
(v) No medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was got done by the prosecution as it would establish the majority of the victim and falsify the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major.
3. The victim and the applicant were intimate.
4. The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship with the applicant.
5. The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant and that she eloped with the applicant. She has stated that she got married to the applicant of her own volition. The victim has also asserted that she had consensual physical relations with the applicant.
8. The victim has not made any allegation of commission of rape, wrongful detention or forceful assault against the applicant in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
6. The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at public places. She did not raise an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.
10. Major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as the recitals in the F.I.R. discredit the prosecution case.
7. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.
9. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
10. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
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- Dileep Kumar 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Ashish Tripathi