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

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47914 of 2023 Applicant :- Lalaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2023 at Police Station-Behjoi, District-Sambhal under Sections 363, 376, IPC, Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 01.09.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 11.10.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA and Sri Kanak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant 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. of 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 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 in the school record. The school records disclosing her age as 17 years are unreliable.

(iii) The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is above 16 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 the same would have established the majority of the victim and falsified the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major.

¶4The delay in lodgment of the FIR in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶5The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶6The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship.

¶7The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant and got married to him of her own volition.

¶8Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R., statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

¶9No allegation of commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has been made by the latter in the said statements.

¶10The victim was never confined or bound down. She was at public places but never resisted the applicant nor raised an alarm. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.

¶11No medical to corroborate the commission of rape has been produced by the prosecution.

¶12The applicant has explained his criminal history. However, learned AGA points out that the applicant has not disclosed criminal history of two cases. Rejoining the issue and relying on the instructions received by the learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a financially destitute person and does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the said cases could not be searched out and stated earlier in the bail application. However, on the basis of the records available with the AGA and instructions obtained from the applicant, it is contended that the applicant was falsely nominated in the said cases only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said criminal cases do not depict commission of any heinous crime by the applicant and has no bearing on the instant 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-Lalaram 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 Pravin High Court of Judicature at Allahabad