Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1651 (ALL)

Rahul alias Rahul Harijan v. State of U. P.

2023-07-12

MOHD.FAIZ ALAM KHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. 2. As per the communication sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur the opposite party no. 2 has been sufficiently served, however, he is not represented. 3. Heard Shri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Rahul @ Rahul Harijan for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 410 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur, during trial. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. submits that the applicant and victim/prosecutrix were in a long standing relationship and the prosecutrix/victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant on 10.12.2021 and had gone to Delhi with her free wish and will where they solemnized marriage in a temple and were living as husband and wife and by conjugation of marriage a boy child was also born to the victim/prosecutrix. 6. It is vehemently submitted that the prosecutrix/victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. had not imputed anything against the instant applicant, except that she willingly accompanied him and solemnized marriage with him and remained with him for a long time and also that she has been blessed by a boy child by such marriage. 7. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix herself refused to undergo internal medical examination and her age has been written by the doctor as 18 years and she in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated her age to be of 20 years and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as 18 years while as per her educational credentials her age comes as 17 years and 9 months, thus the victim/prosecutrix was having sufficient intellect to understand her welfare. 8. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 20.01.2023 and he is not having any criminal history. Charge sheet in this matter has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. 9. 8. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 20.01.2023 and he is not having any criminal history. Charge sheet in this matter has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. 9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is an accused of committing heinous offences. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired from the record that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. had admitted that she herself, with her free wish and had accompanied the applicant to Delhi where they had solemnized marriage and she has also blessed with a child. The age of the prosecutrix as per her educational credentials, at the time of alleged incident comes about 17 years and 9 months while in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated her age as 20 years and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated her age to be of 18 years. Thus in this background it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the victim at the time of alleged incident was having sufficient intellect and may understand her welfare and since the applicant and victim have solemnized the marriage chances of conviction of the applicant are very remote. He is in jail in this case since 20.01.2023. Charge sheet in the matter has already been submitted. His presence could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions. 11. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant-Rahul @ Rahul Harijan involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 12. Let the applicant-Rahul @ Rahul Harijan involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 15. Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.