Point of Law : Court proceed to consider this bail application on premise that victim’s version still remain same, despite she now being a major girl.

JUDGMENT :

1. Applicant-Rajendra Agarwal alias Bablu has approached this Court by way of filing present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 860 of 2021, under Sections 354, 376(D)(B), 323, 328, 506, 366A, 120B IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, after rejection of his bail application vide order dated 07.01.2022 passed by Additional Sessions/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Lalitpur.

2. In the present case an FIR was lodged by victim, a minor girl, aged about 17 years. She has narrated how she suffered sexual ordeal for many years which was commenced, when she was a student of Class-VI. First perpetrator who ravished her was her father (applicant), who not only thereafter repeatedly raped her, but put her in a prostitution racket also.

3. In the FIR, victim has narrated how her father himself presented her before other men, who raped her. Victim also described that even her relatives (uncles) also raped her and women of her family helped them in committing act of rape. Victim and her mother were subjected to sedatives. In all victim, has named 25 accused persons including her father, close relatives, her family friends and other persons and women of her family, who helped in crime. She was not able to disclose earlier about above referred offences since there were repeated threats to cause harm to her mother, younger brother and sister.

4. Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for applicant, submitted that story of victim, on the face of it, appears to be not only concocted but improbable also. It would be beyond imagination that victim was repeatedly raped by her father, her close relatives and applicant has put her in prostitution and it continued for many years. Victim has never raised any alarm or called police or reported matter before police authorities. Learned counsel further submitted that contents of FIR remained consistent in the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as statement made before Medical Officer and Members of Child Welfare Committee, however, she has not mentioned a single date in her statements though she was allegedly subjected to rape repeatedly on many days during long duration of atleast 6-7 years.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that except applicant, this Court has granted bail to all other co-accused by different Coordinate Benches. Medical examination has not supported case of victim. Applicant was falsely implicated and reason for false implication is that the mother of victim is interested in family property. Learned counsel further submitted that some of accused persons have approached this Court challenging charge sheet, cognizance order and summoning order by filing respective applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and this Court has granted interim protection that no coercive measures shall be taken against applicants therein.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that subsequently mother of victim has lodged an FIR against applicant (her husband) that many years ago she was kidnapped and forced to marry him.

7. Above submissions are opposed by Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA appearing for State. He submitted that a minor girl was subjected to sexual assault by many persons for several years. A conspiracy was hatched to put victim in prostitution. For a minor girl, who has gone through such a traumatic ordeal, it is possible that she may not be able to narrate the date and time of offence but this will not dilute the seriousness of crime. There are other factors also that she was always given sedatives and threat was also given to her that in case of any report damage would be caused to her mother, younger brother and sister. Learned AGA, however, has not disputed that other co-accused have been granted bail however he has submitted that the reasons given in bail orders are not in terms of judgements passed by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501 and Brijm