Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14787 of 2021 Applicant :- Deenu @ Deen Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 22.03.2021. As per the office report dated 08.06.2021, a report dated 10.05.2021 of C.J.M. concerned has been received stating therein that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2.
The perusal of the said report shows that notice has been served personally on the opposite party no.2.
No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.
Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Deenu @ Deen Mohammad seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 465 of 2020, under Sections 354, 376, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is a major girl aged about 20 years. It is argued that no ossification test of the victim has been conducted during investigation. It is argued that the First Information Report has been lodged by the father of the victim under Sections 354, 376, 511, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012. It is further argued that subsequently the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has changed the prosecution version and has stated that the applicant committed rape upon her. It is further argued that in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., copy of which is annexed as annexure 4 even therein she has stated that the applicant committed rape her but the place of occurrence has been changed. Learned counsel has placed annexure 4 to the affidavit which is the second statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has argued that even therein although there is an allegation against the applicant committed rape upon her but the same is false and perusal of the same would show that the place of occurrence is different. It is argued that the First Information Report of the present case has been registered on 14.07.2020 for an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 21.06.2020 and as such the same is delay about 21 days which is unexplained. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant is false and incorrect. Learned counsel has further argued that even the medical corroboration of the incident is lacking in the present case as the doctor has not given any opinion regarding any sexual assault on the victim. The applicant is in jail since 15.07.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that during investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected a school leaving certificate of the victim in which her date of birth is mentioned as 09.07.2005 and as such she was aged about 15 years at the time of occurrence. It is argued that the victim in both of her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant committed rape upon her. It is argued that in so far as the argument with regard to the place of occurrence is concerned, there is not much difference therein and even the same is subject to trial. It is further argued that the applicant as such is involved in the present case and the victim is a minor girl. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the victim is aged about 15 years at the time of incident. The victim has in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated about rape being committed upon her by the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, 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 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)