Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36052 of 2020 Applicant :- Paramhansh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Shrama Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramakant Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Shrama, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Bail Application (under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 243 of 2020 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Ranipur, District Mau.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Kanhaiya Rajbhar, on 25.07.2020 at about 4:30 a.m. when his sister had gone for attending call of nature, accused applicant had stuffed cloth in her mouth and she was taken forcibly in field where she was raped and these facts were disclosed by the victim herself; date of birth of his sister is 4.05.2003.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is annexed at page no. 12 of the Supplementary-Affidavit in which she has stated that for the last one year, she was having love relationship with the accused; on 25.07.2020 at 1:00 a.m. in the night, the applicant had phoned her to call her on his house and when she went there to meet him, she was raped against her wish and when her brother had reached there, accused fled from the scene of occurrence. In statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that when she had gone for attending call of nature at 4:00 a.m., the accused had forcibly committed rape upon her against her wish and also threatened that her brother would be killed. Submission is that applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated on the basis of village party-bandi; he has no criminal history; he is in jail since 26.07.2020; victim was having relationship with the accused applicant of her own free will. In medical-examination, her age is found to be 18 years or below 18 years. On the basis of said report, it is argued that she was major which is being disputed by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant by providing to the Court the document issued by Pratapi Devi Intermediate College in which it is recorded that she is student of class 10th and her date of birth is 13.06.2004 and if calculated by the said date of birth, she would be less than 16 years of age, therefore, her consent would be insignificant; if the accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail and stated that in medical examination report, her hymen was found ruptured. As per college report, date of birth of the victim is 13.06.2004 which shows that she was minor on the date of occurrence; radio-logical age does not appear to be correct because in it, age has been mentioned 18 yeas or below 18 years, hence it can also be taken as below 18 i.e. minor. As per the aforesaid date of birth, she is found below 16 years, hence her consent for sexual act would be immaterial.
In view of the above, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant, Paramhansh Chauhan on bail.
The bail application of the applicant Paramhansh Chauhan, is, accordingly, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a downloaded copy of this order from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 A. Mandhani