The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Moid Ahmad, a leader of Samajwadi Party, in connection with the case of an alleged gang-rape of a minor girl in UP’s Ayodhya.
A single-judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Moid Ahmad.
The bail application has been filed seeking enlargement on bail of the applicant in FIR/Case lodged on 29.07.2024 under sections 376-DA, 506 IPC read with section 5g(j) (ii)(l)/6 POCSO Act, P.S Pura Kalandar, District Ayodhya.
The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the FIR, which was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant aged about 12 years had gone to work on the agricultural fields around two and a half months ago when the co-accused Raju aged about 20 years, who used to work in the Bakery run by the applicant, came to her and asked her to come to the applicant who had called her and when the victim reached the Bakery, the applicant who was present caught her and formed physical relations with her against her consent.
It was stated that while physical relations were being formed, the co-accused made a video on the telephone of the applicant and thereafter, he also committed a wrong on the daughter of the informant.
It was also stated that thereafter threats were issued that in case she informed anyone, harm would be committed on her and the video would be made viral.
It was further stated that on the threat of making the video viral and blackmailing the daughter of the informant, on various occasions physical relations were formed against her consent, which resulted in the victim becoming pregnant.
It was further stated that on account of society pressure, she did not inform anyone and one day when she felt unwell and was taken to the doctor, it was revealed that she was carrying a fetus of two months.
Based upon the said allegations, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 CrPC, wherein, the victim virtually reiterated the said version as was contained in the FIR.
She also stated that the co-accused used to work in the shop of the applicant where the victim met him. It was also stated that the co-accused used to talk to her on telephone and used to call in the Bakery.
It was also stated that whenever the victim went to the Bakery, both the accused used to administer some foodstuff because of which she would become unconscious and thereafter wrong was committed on her.
It was stated that although she was pregnant, she was directed not to speak. She also stated that on one day, the co-accused called her on telephone to the Bakery to give certain Bakery products and when she went there, both of them administered something to her and she slept and when the mother of the victim came to the Bakery, she saw the victim in a bad physical condition and was also bleeding and brought her back.
It is stated that then she had informed her mother that both the co-accused used to commit wrong on her and on account of fear, she did not inform anyone and when her periods stopped, the mother became suspicious and thereafter she was taken to the hospital where she was found to be pregnant.
She also stated that when the mother of the victim went to meet both the accused, both of them promised that they would help in abortion.
Subsequently, the victim’s statement was recorded under section 183 BNSS on 31.07.2024, as is evident from the case diary wherein, the victim stated that around two and a half months ago at about 5.00 pm when she was returning from the agricultural fields, the co-accused Raju as well as one Mohit took her to the Bakery and thereafter both of them committed wrong and also stated that in case she informed her mother, she would be beaten. She also stated that around one and a half months after the incident when she felt pain, she informed her mother.
The Court noted,
Subsequently, form the case-diary, it appears that the statement of the victim was once again recorded under section 183 of BNSS on 12.08.2024 after getting permission from the trial court wherein she made a statement that earlier she had taken the name of one Mohit, however, wrong was committed on her by the applicant as well the co-accused. She also disclosed that the applicant was aged about 72-75 years.
She also stated that she was pregnant and her mother had taken her to Lucknow and the child was aborted. She also stated that around two and a half months ago, the applicant and the other co-accused had administered certain medicines to her.
She also stated that one of the co-accused was fat and the other co-accused was a boy aged about 20 years. She also stated that she could identify both the accused, if so produced before her.
She also stated that when asked that earlier she had disclosed the name of Mohit, on investigation no Bakery in the name and style of Mohit was existing. She specifically stated that the name of the applicant was taken in relation to the Bakery. Based upon the said statement, the State intends to prosecute the applicant.
The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that is that the applicant is aged about 71 years and considering his age, the allegation of commission of rape, is not medically possible.
“Considering the arguments as raised across the Bar, in the case, prima-facie in terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that both the co-accused had committed wrong on the daughter of the informant aged about 12 years and a video recording was also made; the allegations are that the physical relations were formed on multiple occasions with the victim aged about 12 years; in the statement under section 161 as well as in the second statement under section 164, which was recorded after obtaining permission from the trial court, prima-facie, allegations of wrong were levelled against both the accused; the FSL report on record although confirms the paternity of the fetus with the co-accused and not with the applicant, however considering the mandate of section 3 of the POCSO Act as well as the definition of rape as defined under section 375 IPC, one of the tests is that of paternity, the same alone is not conclusive with regard to the offence being committed or not.
The specific allegations have been levelled by the victim, the documents on record also demonstrates that the applicant, has a politically clout and taking into account the fact that during the investigation, pressure was exercised for compromise for which an FIR was lodged and taking into account the huge variance in the social and the financial status of the applicant and the victim, at present there is reasonable material to form a view that the applicant if enlarged on bail at this stage can adversely affect the trial,” the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.
“From the material on record and the statement made, it transpires that in terms of the mandate of Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act, the statement of the victim should be recorded within a period of thirty days by the special court taking cognizance, however, no such statement has been recorded so far, as such, I deem it appropriate to direct that the statement of the victim shall be recorded positively within a period of thirty days.
It is further directed that the statement of the informant shall also be recorded positively within a period of one month from today without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if possible, on day today basis by the trial court.
The Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya will personally supervise and ensure that the victim and the informant are produced before the trial court for recording of their testimony, in a safe and secure manner.
It is further directed that the Director FSL shall ensure that the forensic examination of the mobile submitted for FSL report is prepared positively within a period of four weeks,” the order reads.