Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9787 of 2021 Applicant :- Chotu @ Furkan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjeet Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., over this Bail Application, moved by accused-applicant, Chotu @ Furkan, and perused the record.
By means of this application, the accused- applicant, who is said to be involved in Case Crime No.592 of 2020, under Sections 452 and 376 of I.P.C., read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Pakbada, District- Moradabad, is seeking enlargement on bail.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that as per the first information report, age of the prosecutorix was said to be of 16 years and as per medical, her age was said to be 19 years; there is contention in the statement recorded, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., that one other accused had also committed rape with the prosecutorix, alongwith the present accused-applicant, but, this was not the version in the first information report or in the statement, recorded, under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.; it was an after thought and concocted allegations were levelled; prosecutorix is major; accused-applicant is innocent; accused- applicant is of no criminal antecedent; there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed this Bail Application.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that it was a report instantly got lodged on the same day of occurrence by the prosecutorix herself with specific contention that she complained about this occurrence of rape to her elder sister when she came back to home, who immediately summoned her parents, thenafter, they took her to the Police Station, concerned, where this report was got lodged. Meaning thereby, it was an instant report, wherein, present accused-applicant is said to have criminally trespassed inside the house of the victim and thereby committed rape with her. As per the her School Record, wherein, her date of birth is mentioned as 15.07.2006, prosecutorix was 15 years of age. There is also reiteration of the contention in the statement of the prosecutorix with regard to commission of rape with her by the present accused-applicant.
Considering all above facts and circumstance, heinousness of offence of rape with a minor girl by criminally trespassing inside the house, aim and object of Legislation of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail, but, without commenting on merits of the case, there appears to be no ground for grant of bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 bgs/