Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53930 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohd. Kaif Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suhel Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Suhel Ahmad, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel representing first informant.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Mohd. Kaif Siddiqui seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.166 of 2021, under sections 366, 366, 376(2)(n) I.P.C. and 5l/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Munderwa, District- Basti, during pendency of trial.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 09.08.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 10.08.2021 was lodged by first informant- Ramesh Chandra Chaudhary (father of prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.166 of 2021, under sections 366, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Munderwa, District- Basti. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Mohd Kaif Siddiqui has been nominated as solitary named accused.
In brief, according to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 09.08.2021, applicant forciby took away Aastha Chaudhary, the minor daughter of first informant.
Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., prosecutrix Aastha Chaudhary was recovered on 12.08.2021. Thereafter, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer on 12.08.2021. Same is on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. Prosecutrix was thereafter medically examined on 28.07.2021 and her Medico Legal Report is on record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. Ultimately, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit.
Upon completion of statutory investigation of above-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer has ultimately submitted a charge-sheet dated 06.09.2021, whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted under sections 366, 366, 376(2)(n) I.P.C. and 5l/6 POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above-mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. No conviction of applicant is possible on the basis of the allegations made in F.I.R. as well as the statements of prosecutrix recorded under sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. Applicant is man of clean antecedents and has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 12.08.2021. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is then contended that as per the Medico Legal Report of prosecutrix, her age has been determined as 22 years. As such, prosecutrix is major. On the aforesaid premise, learned counel for applicant contends that no offence as alleged in F.I.R. is made out against applicant. Prosecutrix is a consenting party. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for first informant have opposed this bail application. They jointly submit that prosecutrix is minor. Her date of birth is recorded in the High School certificate as 03.08.2005. As such, on the date of occurrence i.e. 09.08.2021, prosecutrix was aged about 16 years and 6 days. Prosecutrix in her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has remained consistent. There is no contradiction in the same. Prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. The have also referred to section 375 I.P.C. Reference has also been made to column 18 and 15-A of Medico Legal Report of prosecutrix and on basis thereof, it is urged that medical evidence supports the prosecution story. Applicant is thus guilty of dislodging the modesty of a minor girl. As such, applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of record, complicity of applicant and accusations made, no good ground for bail is made out.
In view of above, present application for bail fails and is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
It is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 21.12.2021/Saif