Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33304 of 2021 Applicant :- Yashveer @ Iliyas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Learned counsel for the State has informed the Court that notice has been served by the concerned police station on opposite party no.2 on 31.08.2021. He is directed to file the photocopy of the said intimation as received by him with an application in the office within a week from today.
The office shall trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.
None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Jaiswal holding brief of Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, 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-Yashveer @ Iliyas, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.340 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix is a consenting party with the applicant. She has stated that she went with him out of her own sweet-will and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has also stated that even physical relationship between them were established with her consent. The doctor conducting the medical examination has not found any injury on her body externally and internally and opined her to be 17 years of age as per radiological examination. As such the victim is a major and she was a consenting party with the applicant to the physical relationship and she went out of her own sweet- will. The implication of the applicant is false and with malafide intention. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 6.12.2020.
Per contra learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about 15 years as her date of birth mentioned in the FIR is 07.03.2006 and the incident in question is dated 13.11.2020. Even in the school records her date of birth is same as mentioned in the FIR. There is an allegation of the applicant establishing physical relationship with the prosecutrix which is an offence.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is a minor aged about 15 years. There is physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix as stated by her. The consent of a minor is of no worth.
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.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Gaurav