Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14025 of 2021 Applicant :- Chandan Thakur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up in the revised list.
Heard Sri Pranvesh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V. B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
Vide order dated 17.03.2021, notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2. As per the office report dated 04.06.2021, a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 07.04.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party No. 2.
No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Chandan Thakur, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 653 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report was registered under Section 363 I.P.C. against unknown person on 03.09.2019 regarding an incident which took place on 02.09.2019. Subsequently, the victim girl was recovered on 08.09.2019 while she was standing at a bus stop, the copy of the said recovery memo has been placed which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has argued that she has stated that she went out of her own sweet-will and further to a question, she stated that there was no physical relationship between the applicant and herself. It is argued that the doctor conducting the medical examination of the victim, could not give any conclusive opinion about any physical assault on her. It is argued that subsequently, as an afterthought, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the applicant established physical relationship with her after marrying her. It is argued that in the said statement, she has stated that she had called the applicant and had gone with him. It is argued that as such, the implication of the applicant is false. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 and is in jail since 20.09.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the doctor conducting the medical examination of the victim has opined her age to be 14-17 years and as such, she is a minor. It is argued that the doctor himself, has given the benefit of variation of age to the victim while opining her age. It is argued that since the victim is a minor, her consent is of no worth.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the victim is a minor. She has named the applicant as the person under whose custody she was. Further in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has levelled allegation of rape being committed on her by the applicant.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)