High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Rakesh Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Sharma,Vijay Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 710 of 2024, under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351 (3), 65(2) of BNS & Section 5(h)(l)(m)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Tajganj, District-Agra, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have fooled the victim and lured her into his hotel and had committed rape with her on 21.10.2024 at about 12:00 p.m.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of said delay caused. The medical report of the victim does not corroborate the allegations of rape. Learned counsel has also relied on the chat-record of the victim, which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit, whereby the victim seems to be major and is a consenting party as per her chats also. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the ossification test report the age of the victim is 16 years. The said report has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit at page 79.

6. 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. The criminal history of one case has been explained wherein a closure report has been filed. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is a 34 years old married person and has two children from his marriage. He has misused his clout as he is a hotelier and has taken the victim to his hotel and has even forged her documents, thereby showing her age of majority. The victim is only 10 years old. As per her school-record, her date of birth is 24.3.2014. The said school-record has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. As such, her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration.

8. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel has stated that the FIR indicates the age of the victim to be 13 years while in her own statement, it has come up to be 14 years and the ossification test report indicates it to be 16 years. Learned counsel has stated that the medical examination report indicates that she was major. As such, the said school-certificate does not carry any weight in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525.

9. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR of four days coupled with the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and as per the ossification test report, the age of the victim is 16 years and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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.

11. Let the applicant- Rakesh Rajpoot, 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

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

13. 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 :- 6.3.2025 LN Tripathi LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Rakesh Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Sharma,Vijay Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 710 of 2024, under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351 (3), 65(2) of BNS & Section 5(h)(l)(m)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Tajganj, District-Agra, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have fooled the victim and lured her into his hotel and had committed rape with her on 21.10.2024 at about 12:00 p.m.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of said delay caused. The medical report of the victim does not corroborate the allegations of rape. Learned counsel has also relied on the chat-record of the victim, which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit, whereby the victim seems to be major and is a consenting party as per her chats also. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the ossification test report the age of the victim is 16 years. The said report has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit at page 79.

6. 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. The criminal history of one case has been explained wherein a closure report has been filed. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is a 34 years old married person and has two children from his marriage. He has misused his clout as he is a hotelier and has taken the victim to his hotel and has even forged her documents, thereby showing her age of majority. The victim is only 10 years old. As per her school-record, her date of birth is 24.3.2014. The said school-record has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. As such, her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration.

8. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel has stated that the FIR indicates the age of the victim to be 13 years while in her own statement, it has come up to be 14 years and the ossification test report indicates it to be 16 years. Learned counsel has stated that the medical examination report indicates that she was major. As such, the said school-certificate does not carry any weight in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525.

9. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR of four days coupled with the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and as per the ossification test report, the age of the victim is 16 years and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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.

11. Let the applicant- Rakesh Rajpoot, 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

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

13. 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 :- 6.3.2025 LN Tripathi LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad