Allahabad High Court

Ankit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 July, 2024

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115738

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16034 of 2024

Applicant :- Ankit Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Akhlendra Pratap Singh,Deleep Kumar Chaudhari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 24.4.2024.

2. Heard Sri Akhlendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, U/S 363, 366, 376, 506
IPC
and 3/4
POCSO Act
, Police Station Saraimamrej, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years on 21.1.2024 at about 8.00 pm by taking her forcibly to his own house. At the time of the said offence, DJ is stated to be running at high volume, as such, nobody could hear the shrieks. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have again raped her on 11.2.2024 at about 5.00 pm forcibly, when she had gone to throw cow dung in the agricultural field.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

(Arguments on behalf of applicant)

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to certain land dispute. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The FIR is delayed by four days from the second incident and about 25 days from the first incident and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The statement of the victim has been taken up after a delay of six days of the second incident and has been garnered after tutoring. There is a material contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded
u/s 161
and
Cr.P.C., whereby she has denied being subjected to rape in the second incident dated 11.2.2024, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified.

8. The victim by her appearance, seems to be major, although by her school certificate of Class 8th, her date of birth is 17.6.2008, as such, she was about 15 years 7 months old at the time of offence.

9. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

10. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.2.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

(Arguments on behalf of opposite party/State)

11. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant.

CONCLUSION:

12. In light of the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

13. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by
Article 21
of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article 21
of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

14. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the
Article 21
of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Ankit Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under
Section 313
Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

18. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 22.7.2024

Shalini

(Justice Krishan Pahal)