Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27082 of 2021 Applicant :- Srikant Rajbhar @ Srikeval Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Niwash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 06.08.2021. As per the office report dated 06.09.2021, a report dated 02.09.2021 of C.J.M. concerned has been received stating therein that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2.
The perusal of the said report shows that notice has been served personally on the opposite party no.2.
No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.
Heard Sri Shri Niwash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, 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 Srikant Rajbhar @ Srikeval, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia.
The prosecution version as per the First Information Report lodged by Kamlesh Prasad Bind on 10.04.2021 under Section 363 IPC is that his daughter aged about 13 years went from the house on 08.04.2021 at about 03:00 pm on her own, they waited for her return but she did not return till night after which she was searched but could not be traced. A missing report is thus being lodged by him.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecutrix went out from the house on 08.04.2021 for which the First Information Report was registered on 10.04.2021 and she returned back on 15.04.2021. It is argued that although in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated about her going away with the applicant and co-accused Munna Rai but has stated that the applicant committed rape upon her. It is argued that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation of any act done by the applicant and even the applicant is not named therein and further the prosecutrix has stated that co-accused Munna Rai did not establish any physical relationship. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant is false in the present case. It is argued that the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination wherein the doctor has opined her age to be more than 15 years but less than 17 years and as such she would be a major. It is argued that the implication of the applicant only on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.04.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the date of birth of the prosecutrix as per the school records is 11.09.2006 and as such she was aged about 14 years, she is a minor. It is argued that the prosecutrix has stated about the applicant and co-accused Munna Rai alluring the victim and enticing her away and further the applicant is stated to have committed rape upon her. 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 statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of enticing her away along with co-accused and committing rape upon her. As per the school records and the medical report of the doctor, she is a minor. 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 :- 30.9.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)