1. Heard Sri Sachin Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in pursuance to the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 110 of 2020, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Harpalpur, District - Hardoi.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that present first information report has been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix alleging that on the date of occurrence, his minor daughter aged about fifteen years was sleeping alone in the 'chappar' and the applicant taking advantage of the situation approached the prosecutrix and threatened her with knife and pressed her mouth so that she could not shout and sexually assaulted her. There was struggle between the prosecutrix and applicant and two villagers namely Kallu Singh and Himanshu Singh, who were returning from the fields saw the applicant in the torch light and tried to apprehend him, but he somehow managed to escape forcibly. It is alleged by the complainant that the two villagers who are eye witness of the incident, when went to the house of the applicant, they were threatened and beaten by the family members of the applicant due to which they had received serious injuries.
4. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that during investigation statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she has reiterated the contents of first information report. She in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has changed her statement and stated that the applicant on the fateful night did not sexually assaulted her but only threatened her, she has admitted that on earlier occasion the applicant had sexual relations with her. She has further stated that on the date of said incident the applicant had molested her. The statements of two eye witnesses Kallu Singh and Himanshu Singh also saw the applicant running away from the place of incident and even they had held the applicant momentarily, and they have also supported the prosecution case.
5. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 08.05.2020 and looking into the statements of the prosecutrix which are wavering, the applicant is entitled for bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that age of the prosecutrix has come to be fifteen years in radiological examination and considering the statements recorded during investigation clearly establish implication of the applicant in the offence, therefore the bail application deserves to be rejected.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind the age of prosecutrix and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she has categorically stated that she was sexually molested by the applicant consequently provisions of POCSO Act are attracted, statement of prosecutrix also find credence and support with the statements of the injured eye witnesses of the case who had seen the applicant running away from the spot on the said date there is no doubt regarding applicant's involvement in the crime, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
8. The application for bail is accordingly rejected.
9. This order shall not influence the trial Court while proceeding with the trial.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)