Ravindra Kumar @ Nankey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43821 of 2023 Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar @ Nankey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey 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 bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.256 of 2022 at Police Station-Tirwa, District-Kannauj under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 22.03.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 22.08.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Chandra Prakash Pandey, 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 in the F.I.R. as 17 years 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 raises the following grounds:

(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.

(ii) The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 18 years of age.

(iii) The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 18 years of age. The victim is in fact a major.

¶4The applicant was not named in the F.I.R.

¶5The applicant and the victim were intimate.

¶6FIR is a result of the opposition of the parents of the victim to the said relationship.

¶7The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. The victim has also stated that she was being forced to marry against her wishes by her family members. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant and got married to him of her own volition.

¶8No allegation of abduction, wrongful detention or commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has been made by the latter in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶9The 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.

¶10The victim has repudiated the prosecution case in his testimony before the trial court.

¶11Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.

¶12The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶13The 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-Ravindra Kumar @ Nankey 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 :- 17.10.2023 Dhananjai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad