Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. and

2. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Kanaujiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the first informant is not present despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

4. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ankit Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 501 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur.

5. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 24107 of 2023 (Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court the statement of the victim recorded before the Court as PW-2, copy of which is annexed as annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.12.2024 and while placing the cross examination it is submitted that the victim has stated that the applicant used to visit her house and during the said period, he stated that he would marry her and physical relationship was established between them. The applicant did not commit any act forcibly. The relationship was done with consent. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant is false. The applicant is in jail since 03.01.2023.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee and submitted that the victim at the time of the incident was aged about 14 years and thus a minor and as such consent cannot be looked into. It is submitted that even otherwise there are allegations against the applicant of committing rape. It is submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023. It is submitted that there is no new and fresh ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant. It is submitted that the bail of the applicant be rejected.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023. The said order reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Singh Parmar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ankit Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 501 of 2022, under Section 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur.

3. The first information report of the present case has been lodged on 06.11.2022 by Shivcharan alleging therein that his daughter aged about 14 years had gone to school on 07.12.2021 then after 10 minutes the applicant- Ankit and his friend also went behind her. After school she did not return back. The said persons have enticed his daughter. He tried to lodge a first information report but the same could not be lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 11 months. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire allegations against the applicant are totally false and incorrect. It is further argued that the victim was taken to the doctor but she refused her internal medical examination. It is argued that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has although stated of the applicant committing rape upon her many times and then on one day co-accused Raj Kumar also committed rape upon her and she became pregnant after which the same was aborted but the police did not find any such evidence of the victim becoming pregnant and of abortion and as such has not proceeded to charge the applicant in the said relevant sections. It is argued that the entire prosecution case is false. It is argued that co-accused Raj Kumar has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19124 of 2023, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 05 and is in jail since 03.01.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim is aged about 14 years. She has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Even the applicant is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Information & Technology Act as he has recorded some objectionable videos of the victim which were being used by him for blackmailing. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. In so far as the co-accused Raj Kumar is concerned, his case is distinguishable with that of the applicant as the applicant was the main person who has taken away the victim and committed rape repeated times on her.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is aged about 14 years and is a minor. The delay in lodging of the first information report has been explained by the first informant in the first information report itself. The victim states of the applicant committing rape upon her after taking her away. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of Raj Kumar who is the brother-in-law of the applicant.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

9. The statement of the victim states of the applicant establishing physical relationship with her. She was a minor a the time of incident. The consent of a minor is of no worth. The appreciation of the statement of a witness is for the trial court to do the appropriate stage. No ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. The application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Kanaujiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the first informant is not present despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

4. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ankit Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 501 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur.

5. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 24107 of 2023 (Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court the statement of the victim recorded before the Court as PW-2, copy of which is annexed as annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.12.2024 and while placing the cross examination it is submitted that the victim has stated that the applicant used to visit her house and during the said period, he stated that he would marry her and physical relationship was established between them. The applicant did not commit any act forcibly. The relationship was done with consent. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant is false. The applicant is in jail since 03.01.2023.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee and submitted that the victim at the time of the incident was aged about 14 years and thus a minor and as such consent cannot be looked into. It is submitted that even otherwise there are allegations against the applicant of committing rape. It is submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023. It is submitted that there is no new and fresh ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant. It is submitted that the bail of the applicant be rejected.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023. The said order reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Singh Parmar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ankit Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 501 of 2022, under Section 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur.

3. The first information report of the present case has been lodged on 06.11.2022 by Shivcharan alleging therein that his daughter aged about 14 years had gone to school on 07.12.2021 then after 10 minutes the applicant- Ankit and his friend also went behind her. After school she did not return back. The said persons have enticed his daughter. He tried to lodge a first information report but the same could not be lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 11 months. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire allegations against the applicant are totally false and incorrect. It is further argued that the victim was taken to the doctor but she refused her internal medical examination. It is argued that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has although stated of the applicant committing rape upon her many times and then on one day co-accused Raj Kumar also committed rape upon her and she became pregnant after which the same was aborted but the police did not find any such evidence of the victim becoming pregnant and of abortion and as such has not proceeded to charge the applicant in the said relevant sections. It is argued that the entire prosecution case is false. It is argued that co-accused Raj Kumar has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19124 of 2023, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 05 and is in jail since 03.01.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim is aged about 14 years. She has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Even the applicant is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Information & Technology Act as he has recorded some objectionable videos of the victim which were being used by him for blackmailing. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. In so far as the co-accused Raj Kumar is concerned, his case is distinguishable with that of the applicant as the applicant was the main person who has taken away the victim and committed rape repeated times on her.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is aged about 14 years and is a minor. The delay in lodging of the first information report has been explained by the first informant in the first information report itself. The victim states of the applicant committing rape upon her after taking her away. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of Raj Kumar who is the brother-in-law of the applicant.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

9. The statement of the victim states of the applicant establishing physical relationship with her. She was a minor a the time of incident. The consent of a minor is of no worth. The appreciation of the statement of a witness is for the trial court to do the appropriate stage. No ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. The application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad