Allahabad High Court

This criminal appeal U/S 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 21/24.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Lucknow under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Court No.12, District-Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.741 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow convicting under Section 506 of the IPC with sentence of two years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default whereof to undergo additional imprisonment of twenty five days U/s 366 IPC with sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- and in default whereof to undergo additional imprisonment of thirty days u/s 04 of POCSO Act with sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50000/- and in default whereof to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. Order in bail application By means of the bail application the appellant has prayed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal in Sessions Trial No.741 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the 2 CRLA No. 3196 of 2024 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow. The appellant is in jail since 24.09.2024. Shri Puttu Lal Misra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following grounds and the material evidences which were neglected from consideration or not properly appreciated by the learned trial court in accordance with law could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA from the record and entitle the appellant to be enlarged on interim bail:

1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and sentenced under Section 506 of the IPC with sentence of two years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- and Section 363 IPC with sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and Section 366 IPC with sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- and u/s 04 of POCSO Act with sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50000/-.

2. The incident occurred in the night of 30/31.05.2019. The FIR was lodged on 02.06.2019. The delay in the lodgement of the FIR was not explained by the prosecution during the course of the trial. The FIR was lodged after due deliberation to falsely implicate the appellant. The delay in the lodgement of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case.

3. The victim and the appellant were intimate and had eloped together. The victim also got married to the appellant at a temple. Thereafter the victim resided with the appellant in a rented room near the temple for eight days. The FIR was lodged at the behest of the parents of the victim and to deflect attention from her conduct and save the family honour.

4. The victim in her testimony before the trial court has admitted that she had gone with the appellant to the temple where he had applied sindoor on her forehead. Thereafter, she was kept in a rented room near the temple for eight days. 3 CRLA No. 3196 of 2024

5. The victim while residing in the rented room near the temple with the appellant was never confined or bound down and had full opportunity to raise an alarm or escape. She was present at public places with the appellant but never raised a hue and cry nor did she resist the appellant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. The learned trial court erred in law by neglecting the aforesaid facts which are borne out from the evidence in the record.

6. Medical evidence tendered by the prosecution does not establish commission of rape or forceful assault by the appellant with the victim.

7. The learned trial court erred in law by accepting the transfer certificate as presented by P.W. 6 as proof of age, even though the entries regarding the date of birth of the victim could not be established by P.W. 6 who was the Principal of the institution. The findings of the trial court in regard to the age of the victim are in teeth of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

8. The medical report determining the age of the victim was in the record. The said medical report clearly brought the attributes of majority of the victim.

9. The learned trial court erred in law by discarding the said medical report which was drawn up by a competent medical practitioner and failing to consider the same.

10. The learned trial court perversely found the guilt of the appellant by misreading the evidence and neglecting to consider the exculpatory parts of the evidence in the record.

11. The appellant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

12. The appellant has sanguine hope of succeeding in the appeal.

13. There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future. 4 CRLA No. 3196 of 2024

14. Inordinate delay in hearing of the appeal will led to an indefinite detention of the appellant. In absence of possibility of an early hearing of the appeal the appellant could well serve out his sentence and in that event the appeal would become infructuous.

15. The appellant is not a flight risk. The appellant being a law abiding citizen had always cooperated with the investigation and joined the trial proceedings. The appellant is not likely to reoffend. In this wake and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail. Let the appellant-Sanjay @ Rakesh Kumar be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The realization of the fine shall remain stayed. The judgement is reserved on the issue of determination of age of victim under the POCSO Act. Connect with Criminal Appeal No. 1570 of 2023 (Teni @ Ramjan Ali @ Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.) September 12, 2025 Vandit (Ajay Bhanot,J.)

This criminal appeal U/S 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 21/24.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Lucknow under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Court No.12, District-Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.741 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow convicting under Section 506 of the IPC with sentence of two years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default whereof to undergo additional imprisonment of twenty five days U/s 366 IPC with sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- and in default whereof to undergo additional imprisonment of thirty days u/s 04 of POCSO Act with sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50000/- and in default whereof to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. Order in bail application By means of the bail application the appellant has prayed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal in Sessions Trial No.741 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the 2 CRLA No. 3196 of 2024 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow. The appellant is in jail since 24.09.2024. Shri Puttu Lal Misra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following grounds and the material evidences which were neglected from consideration or not properly appreciated by the learned trial court in accordance with law could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA from the record and entitle the appellant to be enlarged on interim bail:

1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and sentenced under Section 506 of the IPC with sentence of two years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- and Section 363 IPC with sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and Section 366 IPC with sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- and u/s 04 of POCSO Act with sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50000/-.

2. The incident occurred in the night of 30/31.05.2019. The FIR was lodged on 02.06.2019. The delay in the lodgement of the FIR was not explained by the prosecution during the course of the trial. The FIR was lodged after due deliberation to falsely implicate the appellant. The delay in the lodgement of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case.

3. The victim and the appellant were intimate and had eloped together. The victim also got married to the appellant at a temple. Thereafter the victim resided with the appellant in a rented room near the temple for eight days. The FIR was lodged at the behest of the parents of the victim and to deflect attention from her conduct and save the family honour.

4. The victim in her testimony before the trial court has admitted that she had gone with the appellant to the temple where he had applied sindoor on her forehead. Thereafter, she was kept in a rented room near the temple for eight days. 3 CRLA No. 3196 of 2024

5. The victim while residing in the rented room near the temple with the appellant was never confined or bound down and had full opportunity to raise an alarm or escape. She was present at public places with the appellant but never raised a hue and cry nor did she resist the appellant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. The learned trial court erred in law by neglecting the aforesaid facts which are borne out from the evidence in the record.

6. Medical evidence tendered by the prosecution does not establish commission of rape or forceful assault by the appellant with the victim.

7. The learned trial court erred in law by accepting the transfer certificate as presented by P.W. 6 as proof of age, even though the entries regarding the date of birth of the victim could not be established by P.W. 6 who was the Principal of the institution. The findings of the trial court in regard to the age of the victim are in teeth of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

8. The medical report determining the age of the victim was in the record. The said medical report clearly brought the attributes of majority of the victim.

9. The learned trial court erred in law by discarding the said medical report which was drawn up by a competent medical practitioner and failing to consider the same.

10. The learned trial court perversely found the guilt of the appellant by misreading the evidence and neglecting to consider the exculpatory parts of the evidence in the record.

11. The appellant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

12. The appellant has sanguine hope of succeeding in the appeal.

13. There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future. 4 CRLA No. 3196 of 2024

14. Inordinate delay in hearing of the appeal will led to an indefinite detention of the appellant. In absence of possibility of an early hearing of the appeal the appellant could well serve out his sentence and in that event the appeal would become infructuous.

15. The appellant is not a flight risk. The appellant being a law abiding citizen had always cooperated with the investigation and joined the trial proceedings. The appellant is not likely to reoffend. In this wake and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail. Let the appellant-Sanjay @ Rakesh Kumar be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The realization of the fine shall remain stayed. The judgement is reserved on the issue of determination of age of victim under the POCSO Act. Connect with Criminal Appeal No. 1570 of 2023 (Teni @ Ramjan Ali @ Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.) September 12, 2025 Vandit (Ajay Bhanot,J.)