RAJNIKANT Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sachin Tiwari learned counsel for revisionist and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav-Ist learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 through video conferencing in view of Covid-19 pandemic. Notices had earlier been issued to opposite party No.2 and as per report dated 31st January, 2019 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pratapgarh, notices were served upon the opposite party No.2, who however is still unrepresented.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed against order dated 3rd August, 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Human Rights and POCSO Act) District Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2018, Rajni Kant versus State of U.P. and order dated 19th July, 2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 60 of 2018 regarding case crime No. 165 of 2018 under Sections 342, 363, 366, 376, 34 (as indicated in the charge sheet dated 6.6.2018) IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh.

(3.) Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that at the time of incident, the revisionist was aged more than 16 years and has been in jail since 28th May, 2018. It has been submitted that the allegations levelled in the first information report that the prosecutrix was abducted by the revisionist along with co-accused and taken into the house of another co-accused Matapher where all the accused committed rape upon her for 21 days as also recorded in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is false and fabricated. It has been submitted that the medical age of prosecutrix has been determined to be more than 18 years and there is no sign of usage of force against the prosecutrix in medical examination. It has been further submitted that strangely, not even a missing person report was lodged by the parents of prosecutrix despite the allegations that she was in illegal custody of all the accused for 21 days. It has therefore been submitted that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the revisionist. Learned counsel has further drawn attention to the order dated 19th December 2018 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 7799 of 2018 (Shiv Poojan alias Golu versus State of U.P.) whereunder the aforesaid co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and the bail application of the other co-accused Matapher has also been allowed in Bail Application No. 8238 of 2018.