Inam v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard Sri Naveen Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 327 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376(2)n of IPC and Sections 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Loni, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 31.05.2024.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 08 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has stated that she loves the applicant and want to marry him. The victim by her looks seems to be major although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 17 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on upper side in light of law laid down by Supreme Court. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

With respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the upper side in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

Let the applicant- Inam, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

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:- 1.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal)