The court emphasized the responsibility to consider the victim's interest and found the applicant's arguments regarding the victim's age and consent unconvincing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2020, under Section 376D Indian Penal Code, In short “IPC” and Sections 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, In short “POCSO Act”, Police Station-Hasanpur, District-Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the victim was in touch with the applicant through mobile chatting. On 17.01.2020, the victim had gone to the house of her aunt and at about 06:30 PM, she had gone to the crossing at Gajraula and the applicant is stated to have enticed her away on the pretext of giving her some gifts on the promise that they shall return within a period of one hour. On the way to Hasanpur, the applicant is stated to have taken her in a room near tubewell wherein one unknown person was standing guard, armed with a country made pistol and the applicant is stated to have committed rape to the victim. It is also alleged in the FIR that after some time, the co-accused, Jaiveer Chauhan and Kovind Chauhan and the said unknown person are also stated to have committed rape with the victim and later on, threatened her to kill her father and brother if she ever reveals their identity to anyone. It is also alleged in the FIR that the applicant had deleted all the chats from the mobile phone of the victim at the time of said incident. The victim is also stated to have been threatened by the applicant of his high connections in high echelons of the society. Somehow the victim had contacted her father and also dialled 100 number to the police whereupon the police is stated to have retrieved her. The FIR was lodged on 18.01.2020 at about 05:10 PM by the victim/informant against the applicant and co-accused persons, Jaiveer Chauhan, Kovind Chauhan and one unknown person u/s 376D & 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is indicated in the FIR itself that the victim had called the police in the morning itself and she was retrieved by the police. Learned counsel has further stated that as per ossification test report, the age of the victim was 18 years. Learned counsel has stated that more often than not the age of the wards is indicated much less by their parents. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in Kalim Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Revision No.568 of 2022 decided on 22.9.2022 of which the relevant para-11 of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:-

“11. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (supra), the credibility and authenticity of the matriculation certificate for the purpose of determination of age under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came up for consideration. In the said case, the Juvenile Justice Board had rejected the claim of the juvenility and that decision of the Juvenile Justice Board was restored by the Hon'ble Apex Court by rejecting the order of the Hon'ble High Court. It was observed therein that the records maintained by the C.B.S.C. were purely on the basis of final list of the students forwarded by the Senior Secondary School where the juvenile had studied from Class 5 to 10 and not on the basis of any other underlying documents. On the other hand, there was clear and unimpeachable evidence of date of birth which had been recorded in the records of another school, which the second respondent therein had