High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9203 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41149 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramkesh Meena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sawhney,Raju Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of informant. 2. The second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 545 of 2023, under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 5 (k) (m) / 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sector 39, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Legal Reasoning
3. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49236 of 2023, which is reproduced as under:- "1. The second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 545 of 2023, under Section- 376-AB IPC and Sections- 5 (k) (m) / 6 of POCSO Act, police station Sector 39, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of informant. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the first information report, which was lodged against un-known person. In the first information report, it was alleged that on 7.8.2023 when the victim came back from her school, the informant found that victim was suffering from bleeding at her private parts. Statement of victim has not been recorded under Sections-161 or 164 CrPC. Statement of Principal and one teacher of the institute, where victim was studying, were recorded, wherein they have merely stated that activities of the applicant, who is a working as teacher, are of psycho type. Statement of Runjhun Devi, who was working as Class IV employee, was referred, wherein she has stated that on 7.8.2023 while the class teacher has gone to toilet, she was asked to look after the children in the class and accordingly she was looking after the children of the class but she does not know how the victim has gone out of the class and later on, she saw that the victim was standing near R. O. machine and the teacher Ramkesh Meena was also standing there. It was submitted that on 20.8.2022 one Smt. V.R.P. Shailja was nominated to conduct study on the class room activities / management and she has submitted a report, wherein, she has pointed out certain shortcomings of secondary class being handled by the applicant, but nothing negative about the character of the applicant has been suggested. In appraisal report of the year 2021-22, it was shown that the applicant is a person of good character. The applicant has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity. There are material contradictions in the version of the first information report and statement of the informant recorded under Sections-161 CrPC. The first information report is ante timed. There is no credible evidence that the victim was molested by the applicant. The applicant is posted as senior teacher in the Institute "Nipped Model Special School", NOIDA and he used to teach students of senior classes, who are suffering from mental illness. There is no CCTV footage of alleged incident. There are contradictions in the statement of Runjhun Devi and informant. The alleged witness Runjhun Devi, who claims to have seen the applicant near water cooler while the victim was also standing there, has not been cited as prosecution witness in the charge-sheet. In the remarks given by the teacher in the progress report of the victim, it was mentioned that the victim is in habit of continuously touching her private part, and thus, it is quite probable that she must have sustained injury due to that reason. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. Lastly it was submitted that the applicant is in jail since 10.8.2023, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 4. Learned A. G. A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that the victim is a seven years' old mentally challenged / special child and it is apparent from her medical examination report that she has been brutally molested. Witness Runjhun Devi has clearly stated that on the day of incident the applicant-accused was seen standing near the victim and no other person was present there. In this connection, statement of one Smt. Shashi was also referred. From the mobile phone of the applicant it was revealed that he used to watch porn videos. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that the victim is a 6-7 years' old mentally challenged girl, no case for bail is made out. 6. Accordingly, this bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Ramkesh Meena is rejected." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Main argument of learned counsel for applicant is that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, the material witnesses, including Runjhun Devi, have been examined before the trial Court and they have not made any incriminating statement against applicant. It was stated that there is no evidence against the applicant. Referring to statements of witnesses examined before trial Court, it was submitted that no case is made out against the applicant. Lastly it was submitted that the applicant is in jail since 10.8.2023, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 5. Learned A. G. A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that the first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits. It was submitted that victim is a seven years' old mentally retarded child and that from her medical examination report, it is clear that she was brutally molested. 6. In view of facts of the matter, particularly considering the fact that victim is a seven years' old mentally retarded child, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-applicant. The second bail application of applicant-accused Ramkesh Meena is hereby rejected. 7. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad