Ankit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43516 of 2023 Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Shri Ashish Ojha, 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 the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.226 of 2023 at Police Station-Shikarpur, District-Bulandshahar under Sections 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. The applicant is in jail since 02.07.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 08.08.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Ashish Ojha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶1Learned counsel for the applicant contests the minority of the victim as depicted in the prosecution case.

¶2The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 15 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case 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 14 years are unreliable.

(iii) The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 15 years of age respectively.

(iv) 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.

¶4The F.I.R. arises out of a petty village neighbourhood dispute.

¶5No allegation of commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has been made by the latter in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶6However, false and aggravated allegations have been made by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against the applicant at the behest of her family members only to save the failing prosecution case.

¶7Major 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.

¶8According to the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she was dragged from the terrace to the house of the applicant.

¶9Medical report does not record any injuries on the person of the victim. Infact medical report contradicts the prosecution case.

¶10Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶11The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court 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-Ankit 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. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Dhananjai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad