Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36291 of 2020 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavya Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by accused applicant-Rahul, in Case Crime No. 540 of 2020, under Sections-376 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-T.P.Nagar, District- Meerut.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for applicant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in Jail since 19.08.2020; accused-applicant is of no criminal antecedent; there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail; First Information Report was got lodged on 14.08.2020 for occurrence of 19.05.2020 i.e. a delayed report by Smt. Sarla; prosecutrix has narrated the occurrence to informant that she being student of 9th class, her date of birth is 07.09.2006, attended a class for sewing upon advice of Rekha at Sherawali temple, Gupta Fatak, Maliyana, which was said to be house of sister-in-law of Rekha; she was sent there under accompany with Rahul claiming himself to be brother of Rekha. There she was administered a glass of water which resulted her giddiness then after applicant committed rape with her under threat of force by showing knife. Prosecutrix came back to her home but this was not disclosed nor narrated. Again on 28.05.2020 she went to above place where she was again subjected to rape by Rahul and it is impossible that one such occurrence was there then in normal prudence no victim will visit again. The report was lodged with delay of three months, as above. Statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is at quite variance. The occurrence could not be replied by the prosecutrix, whereas, any one suffering such trauma will never forget that date. Two independent witnesses Deepu and Shankar, in their statements, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically said about some quarrel occurred at the place of training for sewing but Aruna w/o Sarvindra @ Tinku was unaware of it, though, this quarrel was in between the family of Prosecutrix and accused- applicant for which this report got lodged. It is a malicious prosecution lodged with some ulterior motive. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record, it is apparent that specific date of birth of prosecutrix has been given in counter affidavit to be 07.09.2006 i.e. on the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was less than 14 years. The same has not been disputed in counter affidavit, averments of counter affidavit has not been rebutted by way of rejoinder affidavit, whereas, time for same was given. First Information Report itself reveals that since the beginning threat was there with regard to facing dire consequences in case of opening lips. Threat was also there with regard to some obscene video prepared during above sexual assault. The second visit was under hope of deletion of above video as has been said under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Minute details of fact is not to be appreciated at the time of disposal of bail application because it may prejudice fair trial. Considering all those facts and circumstances and the aim and preamble requiring special legislation of POCSO Act for preventing a tiny and minor child from sexual assault. The victim who happened to be of less than 14 years of age; an student went at above place for having some craft training of sewing where she was subjected to have been sexually assaulted under threat with a threat of viraling obscene video crafted at the time of that sexual assault and then opening of mouth by victim for getting report lodged.
Looking to the heinousness of offence of rape with a tiny girl of vulnerable poor family, aim and object of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 to protect children from sexual offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice, there appears to be no ground for bail.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Deepak/