Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28966 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Bipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hemant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri U.P. Singh, learned counsel 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 Sanjay Kumar Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 09 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Chakarghatta, District Chandauli.
The First Information of the present case was lodged on 20.03.2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 312, 376, 392 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant, Aniruddha Yadav, Ramsakhi Yadav, Rammurat, Sonu and Munna alleging therein that the daughter of the first informant aged about 17 years was studying in a coaching of the applicant where the applicant made a false promise to marry and established physical relationship with her. She had a pregnancy of two months after which the applicant and Aniruddha gave her some medicines due to which the said pregnancy was aborted. On 16.03.2021 at about 03:00 pm, his daughter was called at a place where she went and then her mobile was snatched from her and broken. The photographs and recording in the said mobile were thus destroyed. She was beaten and abused and the accused persons ran away.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. She on an assurance of marriage, established physical relationship with consent. It is argued that although the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case but the same is false and incorrect. Learned counsel has further argued that in the present case, during investigation Sections 312 and 392 IPC have been deleted. It is argued that the prosecutrix has been opined to be of about 19 years of age by the C.M.O., Chandauli and as such she is a major. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 22.03.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that as per the high school mark-sheet of the prosecutrix, her date of birth is 01.01.2004 and as such she was aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence. It is argued that the high school mark-sheet will have prevalence over any other document with regards to the age. It is argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix and he is stated to have established physical relationship with a minor girl. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix as per the high school mark-sheet, is a minor. The consent of a minor as is being argued and stated that she is a consenting party, is of no worth. The prosecutrix in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, 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 :- 27.10.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)