In the case of P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR

3. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2025, under Sections 70(2) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Sungarshi, District- Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The applicant is stated to have forcibly entered the toilet and tried to disrobe the victim and had outraged her modesty on 18.2.2025 at about 10:00 p.m. during a marriage function. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

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

7. The allegations are per se false. The allegations in the FIR have been made regarding outraging the modesty and disrobing the victim and the same have been reiterated in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 180 B.N.S.S., but the said allegations have been escalated to that of rape in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S.

8. The allegations of rape do not stand substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

9. There is no test identification parade conducted as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication as the victim did not identify the applicant. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of hearsay evidence only.

10. The document of Class-5th has been given to the Investigating Officer by the informant, which shows the date of birth of the victim to be 25.7.2011, as such, her age comes out to be 13 years, 06 months and 24 days. The said document has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law being hit by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.2.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the proprietor of the said marriage hall, namely, Hasan and Naveen Singh Bohra had seen the victim and the applicant coming out of the toilet, as such, their evidence is covered by Section 4 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as such, there is no need for the accused to be put to identification. She could have identified the applicant in dock during her statement before the court. The victim is minor aged about 13 years only. CONCLUSION:

13. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

14. 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.

15. In the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. AIR 2022 SC 5661 the Supreme Court acquitted the accused persons due to their non-identification as no test identification parade was conducted as per provisions of Sec. 9 of Evidence Act. This Court in the most referred case of Asharfi and another v. The State AIR 1961 All 153 laid down that the object of Test Identification Parade was to give credence to the statement of a witness who does not know the accused before.

16. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

17. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

19. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

20. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration that no test identification parade has been made and the allegations of rape have been made for the first time in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S., 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.

22. Let the applicant- Vijay @ Rohit involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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.

23. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

24. 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 :- 25.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2025, under Sections 70(2) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Sungarshi, District- Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The applicant is stated to have forcibly entered the toilet and tried to disrobe the victim and had outraged her modesty on 18.2.2025 at about 10:00 p.m. during a marriage function. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

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

7. The allegations are per se false. The allegations in the FIR have been made regarding outraging the modesty and disrobing the victim and the same have been reiterated in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 180 B.N.S.S., but the said allegations have been escalated to that of rape in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S.

8. The allegations of rape do not stand substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

9. There is no test identification parade conducted as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication as the victim did not identify the applicant. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of hearsay evidence only.

10. The document of Class-5th has been given to the Investigating Officer by the informant, which shows the date of birth of the victim to be 25.7.2011, as such, her age comes out to be 13 years, 06 months and 24 days. The said document has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law being hit by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.2.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the proprietor of the said marriage hall, namely, Hasan and Naveen Singh Bohra had seen the victim and the applicant coming out of the toilet, as such, their evidence is covered by Section 4 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as such, there is no need for the accused to be put to identification. She could have identified the applicant in dock during her statement before the court. The victim is minor aged about 13 years only. CONCLUSION:

13. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

14. 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.

15. In the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. AIR 2022 SC 5661 the Supreme Court acquitted the accused persons due to their non-identification as no test identification parade was conducted as per provisions of Sec. 9 of Evidence Act. This Court in the most referred case of Asharfi and another v. The State AIR 1961 All 153 laid down that the object of Test Identification Parade was to give credence to the statement of a witness who does not know the accused before.

16. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

17. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

19. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

20. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration that no test identification parade has been made and the allegations of rape have been made for the first time in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S., 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.

22. Let the applicant- Vijay @ Rohit involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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.

23. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

24. 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 :- 25.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad