Satish Alias Suraj Parjapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47708 of 2023 Applicant :- Satish Alias Suraj Parjapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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.306 of 2023 at Police Station-Shivpur, District-Varanasi under Sections 376, 392, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The applicant is in jail since 01.09.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 19.10.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by 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 prosecution case 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 school records records that the victim is 19 years of age.

(iii) The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 18 years of age.

(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 falsify the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major.

¶4Delay in taking out proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶5The victim and the applicant were intimate and had a consensual physical relationship.

¶6The applicant never gave a plighted word to marry the victim.

¶7The applicant did not capture or circulate any indecent video of the victim.

¶8No indecent video has been recovered from the applicant.

¶9False and aggravated allegations were made by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against the applicant to save the failing prosecution case.

¶10Moreover, the said statement alleges that the incident happened at the house of the victim. However, there is no sign of forced entry.

¶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-Satish Alias Suraj Parjapati 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 :- 8.11.2023 Ashish Tripathi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad