Ravi @ Rauvi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Ajay Bhanot, J

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2020 at Police Station Sasni, District Hathras under Sections 363, 366, 120-B, 376, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 20.09.2021.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)-I, Hathras, on 14.06.2022.

Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the medical report the age of the victim is 18 years. The age of the victim was falsely recorded in the school certificate to give her unfair advantage in life. The victim and the applicant are cousins. They became intimate over the years. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The FIR is a result of such opposition and the criminal prosecution is intended to create a breach in their relationship. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant of her own volition and travelled with the applicant to Delhi and thereon to Jaipur. She got married with the applicant of her own free will. They resided together as a couple. The victim is an expectant mother with six months pregnancy. The victim travelled and resided with the applicant. She never resisted the applicant or raised any alarm. She was a consenting party. However subsequently false and aggravated allegations of rape were made against the applicant in the her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to divert attention from her conduct and save the failing prosecution case. Material contradictions in the FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. No medical evidence to support any allegation of rape or forceful assault has been produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

Learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Ravi @ Rauvi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.