High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2801 of 2022 Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) The victim is 17 years 2 months old on the date of incident. (b) The victim does not support the prosecution version. (c) The victim left her house on her own will and the victim and the applicant solemnized the marriage. It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.,
Arguments
Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Akhilesh Kumar Verma under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 66 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Protection of Chidren From Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, registered at Police Station- Raja Talab, District- Varanasi during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (POCSO)/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 14.12.2021. Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 18.11.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and sister-in-law (Vinita Devi) of the first informant by the mother of the victim stating therein that on 05.10.2021 sister-in- law of the first informant had sent the applicant to the house of the first informant to fetch her minor daughter in her house, when the first informant went to her maternal house to see her daughter, then her sister-in-law stated that her daughter has enticed away by the applicant and applicant and her daughter have solemnized marriage. It is further alleged that co-accused Vinita Devi admitted that she has helped them in the aforesaid act. After lodging the first information report, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 18.11.2021 and on the same day the Investigating Officer produced the victim and as per the report of C.M.O. dated 19.11.2021, the victim has refused to get her internal examination. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 20.11.2021. The applicant was arrested on 19.11.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per High School Certificate of the victim, the date of birth of the victim is 01.09.2004 and the age of the victim is 17 years 2 months old on the date of incident. He further contended that the statement of victim does not support the prosecution version and stated that she left her house on her own will and her maternal aunt (Mami) Vineeta Devi and maternal uncle were the persons who got solemnized the marriage of the victim to the applicant, but the applicant never had made physical relationship. He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.