IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.
Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51543 of 2022
Decided On : 17-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 164 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 – Section 7/8 –Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 5/7 – Punishment for kidnapping – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Examination of witnesses by police – Recording of confessions and statements – As per prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R., it is alleged that maternal uncle of informant i.e. accused-applicant enticed away minor daughter of informant, and she (prosecutorix) had taken away some jewellary, money etc. along with her – Held, Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party, upon consideration of evidence on record, considering aforesaid case-law, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with fact that there is no medical evidence to support prosecution of applicant, prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. having not supported prosecution case, prosecutrix and applicant having solemnized marriage and are living together as husband & wife and without expressing any opinion on merits of case, applicant has made out a case for bail – Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori supported by an affidavit of the prosecutorix seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.65 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Banda, during the pendency of trial.
3. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 09.03.2020, an F.I.R. dated 20.03.2020 was lodged by first informant Premchand (father of prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.65 of 2020 under 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Banda.
4. In brief, as per prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that maternal uncle of the informant i.e. accused-applicant (Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori) enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 16 years on 09.03.2020 and she (prosecutorix) had taken away some jewellary, money etc. along with her.
5. After registration of the aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Thereafter, statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer wherein she has not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. To the contrary, prosecutrix has stated that she herself accompanied the applicant out of her own free will. She has also stated that she has solemnized marriage with the applicant. As a consequence of above, they started living together as husband and wife. Thereafter, prosecutrix was requested for her medical examination, which was refused by her. Ultimately, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she re-joined her earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, also recovered the mark-sheet/certificate pertaining to the High School Examination of prosecutrix wherein her date of birth is recorded as 11.07.2004, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the bail application.
6. Aggrieved with the above, applicant and other co-accused persons have filed a petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.52 of 2021 seeking stay in the aforesaid FIR and, thereafter, considering the facts of the case, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2021 stayed the proceedings of the aforesaid case crime number against the applicant as well as other two accused persons, which was also extended on 12.02.2021 till 01.04.2021 and is still pending now.
7. After recording the statement of the prosecutorix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on 13.09.2022, an application was given by the police before the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Banda and on that application on 14.09.2020, concerned Juvenile Court passed the order mentioning therein that he has no jurisdiction to the same as prosecutorix/victim is major and aged about 18 years and two months. Thereafter, victim has moved an application before the concerned police station stating therein that she did not want to go with her parents and wants to go with her mother-in-law for living their happily life. On 14.09.2020, another application has also been moved by the father of the victim before the concerned police station wherein, he has specifically stated that she (prosecutorix) is major and he has no concern with her and denied for keeping them, copies of the same have been annexed as Annexure-7 to the bail application.
8. The occurrence occurred on 09.03.2020. As such, prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 07 months and 28 days on the date of occurrence. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he opined t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating the evidentiary value of the prosecutrix's statement for the purpose of granting bail, and the court's authority to ta....
Point of Law : 7. Petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for an unlimited period, as investigation is complete and challan stands presented in learned trial Court, fact that petitioner is neither in a....
The court ruled that even if there appears to be consent, charges under IPC cannot be disregarded if the prosecutrix is underage, but bail is granted due to completed investigation and no prior crimi....
The consensual nature of a relationship and the age of the prosecutrix are crucial factors in considering bail applications in cases involving charges under the POCSO Act.
The court emphasized a reformative approach for young offenders, balancing the seriousness of allegations with the potential for rehabilitation.
POCSO Act – Grant of Bail - Love affair with the prosecutrix and entire story of prosecution that he kidnapped the prosecutrix and raped her, is concocted.
The presumption of innocence, the sufficiency of evidence, and the purpose of pre-trial incarceration were central to the court's decision in granting bail.
The court may grant bail based on the duration of custody and the expected trial duration, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court ruled that while consent is immaterial under POCSO, the circumstances of the relationship and lack of coercion are critical in bail considerations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.