High Court · 2025

2. Heard Ms. Aradhana Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aditya Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 328, 120B I.P.C., 5(g)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that she belongs to scheduled caste and her date of birth is 17.08.2007, as such she was aged about 17 years. She had studied upto Class XIth and is a model.

5. She had gone in a modeling event at Jaipur on 05.04.2024. On her way back from Jaipur on 06.04.2024, she had reached Dhaulakuwa, Delhi by bus.

6. The co-accused person Bharat Singh and other named co- accused persons, including the applicant, are stated to have met her who were driving Eco-Sport Car No.DL 10CT 5236.The co- accused person Bharat Singh is stated to be her previously acquainted person as he had conducted her first photo-shoot and he asked the informant about her destination. On being told by the informant that she was going to Moradabad, he is stated to have informed her that they all were also headed to Morodabad and offered to drop her there.

7. The informant is stated to have boarded the said car relying on the statement of the co-accused Bharat Singh at about 11:30 p.m. On reaching Ghaziabad, the named accused persons took dinner at a hotel and gave a cold-drink to the informant.

8. The informant is stated to have consumed the cold-drink only, but after drinking it she is stated to have gone topsy turvy and lost her senses. The applicant was driving the car. During the said journey, the co-accused persons, namely Bharat Singh and Anil, are stated to have committed rape with the informant by disrobing her.

9. After gaining her consciousness, the informant is stated to have asked the accused persons to stop the car as she wanted to go to the washroom. The informant is stated to have dialed the police at number 112 from washroom and came back to the car.

10. The trio are stated to have taken the victim to Hotel Carmate near Railway Station, Moradabad, where they had already booked two rooms. The three persons are stated to have left the informant at the said hotel. The police is stated to have reached the hotel after sometime. The informant is stated to have even called her parents and reached the police station with them.

11. The FIR was instituted at police station on 07.04.2024 at 6:18 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

12. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

13. The applicant is simply the driver of the said vehicle, which is an admitted fact.

14. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has not allayed any allegations of rape against the applicant. She has categorically stated that the applicant was only driving the car.

15. The role of the applicant is at a different footing to the co- accused persons, namely, Bharat Singh and Anil.

16. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is contradictory to the FIR.

17. The victim is a consenting party which can be inferred from the fact that she got a room booked at the Hotel Carmate in the name of Soniya Singh.

18. The manager of the hotel Ajay Kumar has categorically stated that the victim/informant herein had introduced herself to be Soniya and three accused persons are stated to have left the hotel leaving behind the informant. The said accused persons had stayed there for barely three minutes.

19. The police, who was informed by dialing 112 by the informant, is stated to have reached there, whereby they are stated to have told the manager that a girl with her name Vanshika has complained that three persons have gang-raped her in a car and the police had taken her alongwith them.

20. The said statement of the manager of the hotel and the receipt have been filed as Annexure Nos.7 and 8 to the bail application. The CDR of the mobile of the victim has also been filed as Annexure No.9 to the bail application, which indicates that the victim was continuously in touch with several persons from 06.04.2024 to 07.04.2024, as such there is no possibility of her gang-rape during the said conversations.

21. As per high-school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 17.08.2007, as such she was aged about 16 years, 7 months and 19 days, which is marginally less than the age of majority.

22. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is in jail since 08.04.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

23. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the said CDR of the victim categorically indicates that her phone did not have any conversation during the intervening period from 01:06:40 to 01:20:22 on 07.04.2024, as such the prosecution story stands fortified.

24. The informant was never a consenting party. Her drink was spiked by the applicant in collusion with the co-accused persons and she has been subjected to gang-rape.

25. The applicant acted with common intention and was the person who had provided the cold-drink to the victim, thereby rendering her unconscious, as such he was very much involved in the said crime and is not entitled for bail.

26. The statement of Constable 3237 Amit Kumar and Home Guard 1534 Vipin Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicates that the victim in a terrified state was taken to Kotwali by the police. CONCLUSION:

27. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim at the time of offence was minor and her drink, which was provided by the applicant, was spiked, as such she was rendered incapable of resisting and was thereupon gang-raped, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

28. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

29. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Ms. Aradhana Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aditya Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 328, 120B I.P.C., 5(g)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that she belongs to scheduled caste and her date of birth is 17.08.2007, as such she was aged about 17 years. She had studied upto Class XIth and is a model.

5. She had gone in a modeling event at Jaipur on 05.04.2024. On her way back from Jaipur on 06.04.2024, she had reached Dhaulakuwa, Delhi by bus.

6. The co-accused person Bharat Singh and other named co- accused persons, including the applicant, are stated to have met her who were driving Eco-Sport Car No.DL 10CT 5236.The co- accused person Bharat Singh is stated to be her previously acquainted person as he had conducted her first photo-shoot and he asked the informant about her destination. On being told by the informant that she was going to Moradabad, he is stated to have informed her that they all were also headed to Morodabad and offered to drop her there.

7. The informant is stated to have boarded the said car relying on the statement of the co-accused Bharat Singh at about 11:30 p.m. On reaching Ghaziabad, the named accused persons took dinner at a hotel and gave a cold-drink to the informant.

8. The informant is stated to have consumed the cold-drink only, but after drinking it she is stated to have gone topsy turvy and lost her senses. The applicant was driving the car. During the said journey, the co-accused persons, namely Bharat Singh and Anil, are stated to have committed rape with the informant by disrobing her.

9. After gaining her consciousness, the informant is stated to have asked the accused persons to stop the car as she wanted to go to the washroom. The informant is stated to have dialed the police at number 112 from washroom and came back to the car.

10. The trio are stated to have taken the victim to Hotel Carmate near Railway Station, Moradabad, where they had already booked two rooms. The three persons are stated to have left the informant at the said hotel. The police is stated to have reached the hotel after sometime. The informant is stated to have even called her parents and reached the police station with them.

11. The FIR was instituted at police station on 07.04.2024 at 6:18 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

12. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

13. The applicant is simply the driver of the said vehicle, which is an admitted fact.

14. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has not allayed any allegations of rape against the applicant. She has categorically stated that the applicant was only driving the car.

15. The role of the applicant is at a different footing to the co- accused persons, namely, Bharat Singh and Anil.

16. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is contradictory to the FIR.

17. The victim is a consenting party which can be inferred from the fact that she got a room booked at the Hotel Carmate in the name of Soniya Singh.

18. The manager of the hotel Ajay Kumar has categorically stated that the victim/informant herein had introduced herself to be Soniya and three accused persons are stated to have left the hotel leaving behind the informant. The said accused persons had stayed there for barely three minutes.

19. The police, who was informed by dialing 112 by the informant, is stated to have reached there, whereby they are stated to have told the manager that a girl with her name Vanshika has complained that three persons have gang-raped her in a car and the police had taken her alongwith them.

20. The said statement of the manager of the hotel and the receipt have been filed as Annexure Nos.7 and 8 to the bail application. The CDR of the mobile of the victim has also been filed as Annexure No.9 to the bail application, which indicates that the victim was continuously in touch with several persons from 06.04.2024 to 07.04.2024, as such there is no possibility of her gang-rape during the said conversations.

21. As per high-school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 17.08.2007, as such she was aged about 16 years, 7 months and 19 days, which is marginally less than the age of majority.

22. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is in jail since 08.04.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

23. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the said CDR of the victim categorically indicates that her phone did not have any conversation during the intervening period from 01:06:40 to 01:20:22 on 07.04.2024, as such the prosecution story stands fortified.

24. The informant was never a consenting party. Her drink was spiked by the applicant in collusion with the co-accused persons and she has been subjected to gang-rape.

25. The applicant acted with common intention and was the person who had provided the cold-drink to the victim, thereby rendering her unconscious, as such he was very much involved in the said crime and is not entitled for bail.

26. The statement of Constable 3237 Amit Kumar and Home Guard 1534 Vipin Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicates that the victim in a terrified state was taken to Kotwali by the police. CONCLUSION:

27. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim at the time of offence was minor and her drink, which was provided by the applicant, was spiked, as such she was rendered incapable of resisting and was thereupon gang-raped, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

28. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

29. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad