State of U.P v. Istekhar Ahmad

1. Heard Shri Akashdeep Singh, holding brief of Mohd. Salman, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State respondent no.1, Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and perused the record.

2. Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of cr.p.c. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court under pocso act, Court No.12, Sultanpur in Special Trial No. 1341/2022 "State of U.P. Vs. Istekhar Ahmad" vide Case Crime No. 943/2022 under Section 363, 366- a, 376 ipc and Section 3/4 pocso act Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under section under section 363 ipc -05 years simple imprisonment + Rs.5000/- fine, in default of payment of fine one month Additional Simple imprisonment, under section 366-A ipc - 05 years simple imprisonment + Rs.5000/- fine, in default of payment of fine one month additional simple imprisonment, under Section 4 POCSO Act -10 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs20000/- fine and in default of payment 2 CRLA No. 1447 of 2024 of fine two months simple imprisonment and all the sentence are directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the FIR version, the mother of the prosecutrix submitted an application at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Sultanpur on 06/09/2022, on the basis of which the FIR was lodged with allegation that on 06/09/2022, her two daughters went to their uncle's house. The victim told her younger sister that she was going to meet Istekhar Ahmad, (appellant). Istekhar would be teaching Arabic and they became friendly. The girl did not return home. They called accused Istekhar on his mobile phone, but his number was switched off. Her father and brother went to the accused's house and got to know that the accused had not come home for the past three months. Then, they accused were married and also missing. The accused is also married. After this incident, the informant stated in the FIR that she thought the accused had enticed away her elder daughter for the purpose of sexual harassment. The date of birth of the victim is 15/5/2005. On the basis of the FIR, the case was registered and investigated. After investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under sections 363, 366, 376, and 3/4 POCSO Act. According to the date of birth of the victim recorded in the school record, she was 17 years, 3 months, 20 days old on the date of the incident. The learned trial court treated her as a minor as she was below 18 years, as per the school record, on the date of the incident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim has not stated before the court in her cross examination that she used to talk to the accused on the mobile phone and was in love with him for six months. 3 CRLA No. 1447 of 2024 She did not raise any alarm while sitting on the pillion of the bike. She is Class 10th pass. The accused used to teach her Arabic at her home. Her siblings also used to take tuition from him at home. She admitted that she told her sister that she was going to meet the accused. She was kept in a room in Madarsa Raebareli. Her father passed away 7 years before the date of her examination. She returned on a bike from Raebareli. She refused the suggestion of false implication and the learned trial court has not disbelieved the false implication.

5. He next submitted that from perusal of the record the conduct and statements of the victim during investigation as well as during trial, it is quite apparent that she was a consenting party. Although, according to school records, she was a few months younger than the age of majority, which is 18 years but she has not made any allegation against the appellant regarding any ill treatment or forceful taking away, or committing rape on her in a statement before the court.

6. He next submitted that the appellant has been in jail custody since 20/3/2024. The appellant has been held in jail custody for three years and one month during trial as well as after conviction. He next submitted that the appeal is a new one and it will take considerable time for its hearing and disposal due to heavy docket. The appellant undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail in case he is granted liberty of bail. He lastly submitted that in medical evidence, the proposition of rape has not been corroborated in any manner.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused betrayed the trust of the family of the victim as he used to teach the victim and her 4 CRLA No. 1447 of 2024 siblings. The conduct of the victim is not offending but embargo.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence, the statement of the victim, the long incarceration of the appellant and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

9. Let the appellant, Istekhar Ahmad, involved in the 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, with the following conditions: (1) The appellant will assist the Court in early disposal of the appeal and no unnecessary adjournment will be taken or requested on his behalf. (2) The appellant or his counsel will be appearing on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. (3) The appellant will never contact the victim or her parents or siblings in any manner whatsoever, either physically or by electronic modes. On breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution or informant will have liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. Order on memo of appeal List in due course for hearing December 18, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

1. Heard Shri Akashdeep Singh, holding brief of Mohd. Salman, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State respondent no.1, Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and perused the record.

2. Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of cr.p.c. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court under pocso act, Court No.12, Sultanpur in Special Trial No. 1341/2022 "State of U.P. Vs. Istekhar Ahmad" vide Case Crime No. 943/2022 under Section 363, 366- a, 376 ipc and Section 3/4 pocso act Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under section under section 363 ipc -05 years simple imprisonment + Rs.5000/- fine, in default of payment of fine one month Additional Simple imprisonment, under section 366-A ipc - 05 years simple imprisonment + Rs.5000/- fine, in default of payment of fine one month additional simple imprisonment, under Section 4 POCSO Act -10 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs20000/- fine and in default of payment 2 CRLA No. 1447 of 2024 of fine two months simple imprisonment and all the sentence are directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the FIR version, the mother of the prosecutrix submitted an application at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Sultanpur on 06/09/2022, on the basis of which the FIR was lodged with allegation that on 06/09/2022, her two daughters went to their uncle's house. The victim told her younger sister that she was going to meet Istekhar Ahmad, (appellant). Istekhar would be teaching Arabic and they became friendly. The girl did not return home. They called accused Istekhar on his mobile phone, but his number was switched off. Her father and brother went to the accused's house and got to know that the accused had not come home for the past three months. Then, they accused were married and also missing. The accused is also married. After this incident, the informant stated in the FIR that she thought the accused had enticed away her elder daughter for the purpose of sexual harassment. The date of birth of the victim is 15/5/2005. On the basis of the FIR, the case was registered and investigated. After investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under sections 363, 366, 376, and 3/4 POCSO Act. According to the date of birth of the victim recorded in the school record, she was 17 years, 3 months, 20 days old on the date of the incident. The learned trial court treated her as a minor as she was below 18 years, as per the school record, on the date of the incident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim has not stated before the court in her cross examination that she used to talk to the accused on the mobile phone and was in love with him for six months. 3 CRLA No. 1447 of 2024 She did not raise any alarm while sitting on the pillion of the bike. She is Class 10th pass. The accused used to teach her Arabic at her home. Her siblings also used to take tuition from him at home. She admitted that she told her sister that she was going to meet the accused. She was kept in a room in Madarsa Raebareli. Her father passed away 7 years before the date of her examination. She returned on a bike from Raebareli. She refused the suggestion of false implication and the learned trial court has not disbelieved the false implication.

5. He next submitted that from perusal of the record the conduct and statements of the victim during investigation as well as during trial, it is quite apparent that she was a consenting party. Although, according to school records, she was a few months younger than the age of majority, which is 18 years but she has not made any allegation against the appellant regarding any ill treatment or forceful taking away, or committing rape on her in a statement before the court.

6. He next submitted that the appellant has been in jail custody since 20/3/2024. The appellant has been held in jail custody for three years and one month during trial as well as after conviction. He next submitted that the appeal is a new one and it will take considerable time for its hearing and disposal due to heavy docket. The appellant undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail in case he is granted liberty of bail. He lastly submitted that in medical evidence, the proposition of rape has not been corroborated in any manner.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused betrayed the trust of the family of the victim as he used to teach the victim and her 4 CRLA No. 1447 of 2024 siblings. The conduct of the victim is not offending but embargo.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence, the statement of the victim, the long incarceration of the appellant and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

9. Let the appellant, Istekhar Ahmad, involved in the 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, with the following conditions: (1) The appellant will assist the Court in early disposal of the appeal and no unnecessary adjournment will be taken or requested on his behalf. (2) The appellant or his counsel will be appearing on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. (3) The appellant will never contact the victim or her parents or siblings in any manner whatsoever, either physically or by electronic modes. On breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution or informant will have liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. Order on memo of appeal List in due course for hearing December 18, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)