Allahabad High Court has denied bail to the accused in a case involving grave allegations of gang rape, criminal intimidation, and violations of child protection and IT laws. The court emphasized the seriousness of the crime and its impact on societal trust while ruling on the bail application of Halkaee Ahirwar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32226 of 2024.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to an incident reported on April 20, 2024, in Lalitpur district, Uttar Pradesh. The victim, a 14-year-old girl, alleged that she was lured and subsequently assaulted by the applicant and three others. The accused reportedly recorded the assault and threatened to kill the victim if she disclosed the incident.
The case was registered under Sections 376DA (gang rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 5g/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The application for bail, filed by Halkaee Ahirwar, came before Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
Legal Issues Considered by the Court
The court’s ruling addressed multiple significant legal issues:
1. Seriousness of Allegations: The court observed that the crime was not only a severe physical assault but also a deliberate act of psychological coercion intended to silence the victim.
2. Societal Impact: Justice Yadav noted that crimes of this nature severely undermine public confidence in the justice system.
3. Bail Criteria: Weighing the gravity of the offense against the arguments for bail, the court focused on the potential risk to the victim and society if the accused were released.
Arguments Presented
– For the Applicant: Counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Shakil and Shams Tabrez Ali, argued that the accusations were exaggerated and fabricated, highlighting the absence of prior criminal records against their client. They also pointed out discrepancies in the timeline of the FIR filing and claimed no substantive evidence was presented linking the applicant to the offense.
– For the State: Opposing bail, Babita Upadhyay and the Government Advocate highlighted the victim’s testimony and the corroborative evidence collected during the investigation. They stressed the violent nature of the crime, the victim’s vulnerability, and the societal repercussions of releasing the accused.
Observations by the Court
In a strongly worded observation, Justice Yadav remarked, “Granting bail in such cases would undermine public trust in the legal system and embolden perpetrators of heinous crimes.” He further noted that the victim’s age and the evidence presented reinforced the gravity of the offense, making bail unwarranted.
The court underscored that preliminary investigation had revealed sufficient evidence, including testimonies under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), to justify the denial of bail.
Case Details
– Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32226 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
– Applicant’s Counsel: Mohd. Shakil, Shams Tabrez Ali
– Opposition Counsel: Babita Upadhyay, Government Advocate
