The High Court of Allahabad has granted conditional bail to Yuvraj Yadav @ Amraj of Prayagraj, Soraon, accused of raping a minor.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Yuvraj Yadav @ Amraj.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in case at Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj under Sections 376, 506, 342 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant has been in jail since 02.09.2022.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court on 28.06.2023.
Counsel for the applicant contests the minority of the victim as depicted in the prosecution case. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 15 years in the F.I.R only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.
Counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case in light of the judgement of the Court in Monish Vs State of U.P and others and on the following grounds: (i) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim’s parents to give her an advantage in life. The school records disclosing her age as 15 years are unreliable. (iii) The victim in her statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C has asserted that she is 15 years of age. (iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is 15 years of age. (v) No medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was done by the prosecution as it would establish the majority of the victim and falsify the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major.
The Court said that the delay in lodgement of the F.I.R in the facts and circumstances of the case is fatal to the prosecution case.
Counsel for the applicant said that the victim and the applicant were intimate. The F.I.R is the result of opposition of the victim’s family to the said relationship. They were found in a compromising position and the F.I.R was registered to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim and to save family honour.
The Court noted that,
The prosecution case set out in the F.I.R is that the victim was dragged from a public road to the house of the applicant. However, the medical report does not depict any injuries which would have been caused, had the victim resisted the applicant.
The victim was present at a public place with the applicant. She never resisted the applicant nor raised an alarm. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.
According to the victim, the applicant locked her in the house and escaped after committing rape on her. However, the witnesses who allegedly rescued her assert that the applicant was present in the house when they reached to rescue the victim and he opened the door in response to their call.
There are contradictions in the F.I.R, statement of the victim and other statements of the witnesses under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C which discredited the prosecution case. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the case.
“The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant- Yuvraj Yadav @ Amraj 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 or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.