Jan Singh v. State of U.P.And 3 Others

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44563 of 2023 Applicant :- Jan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhilasha Singh Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I 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.227 of 2023 at Police Station-Talbehat, District-Lalitpur under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and Sections 5Chha/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 04.10.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Ms.Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I 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 15 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 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 basis of the said entry in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 15 years, 5 months are unreliable.

(iii) The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 13 years and 17 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.

¶4Delay in lodgment of the F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶5The applicant has been nominated on account of family dispute.

¶6The applicant is the brother-in-law of the victim.

¶7The victim was riding pillion on the motorcycle being driven by the applicant.

¶8The victim travelled to various public places. She was never confined or bound down in any manner. She did not raise an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.

¶9The victim in her earlier statements stated that she escaped from her house because of domestic quarrels. In the said statement she stated that she was 20 years of age.

¶10The applicant was not named by the victim in the aforesaid statement.

¶11Major inconsistencies in the FIR, the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

¶12Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.

¶13The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶14The 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-Jan Singh 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 :- 7.11.2023 Ashish Tripathi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad