Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11383 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajiv @ Gorab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamala Kant Pandey Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamala Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. 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- Rajiv @ Gorab, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 464 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Mawana, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that first information report has been registered under Section 366 I.P.C. although naming the applicant as a sole accused and stating therein that the applicant took away the victim girl who was seen by Ravi son of the first informant but the same is false and incorrect. It is argued that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she was in friendship with the applicant and had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet-will and they had established physical relationship. It is argued that subsequently, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she had gone with the applicant on his extending threat to her and then stayed in a rented room for five days but the applicant did not do any objectionable act with her and even did not establish any physical relationship with her. It is argued that as such, the story as stated by her in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about physical relationship being established between them, is false and incorrect. It is argued that the victim had refused her medical examination when she was produced before the doctor. It is argued that as such, the implication of the applicant is false and the victim had gone with the applicant out of her sweet-will and had remained in a rented room for five days without any resistance whatsoever. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 17 and is in jail since 14.12.2020.
Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim as per the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut has been opined to be about 15 years of age. The said certificate is annexed at page 40 of the paper- book. It is argued that as such, she is a minor and the consent of a minor, is of no worth. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and even the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim, she has stated of her taking away by the applicant. It is argued that since the victim was a minor, the applicant is involved in the present case.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the victim was aged about 15 years as per the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. The fact of the applicant taking away the victim is not disputed.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is 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 :- 27.7.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)