The Allahabad High Court, under Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, rejected a bail application in a case involving allegations of rape and other serious crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court’s judgment emphasized the gravity of the crime, stating that rape constitutes a “dehumanizing act” and a severe intrusion upon the dignity and sanctity of the victim.
Background of the Case
The case, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 56177 of 2023, pertains to Arvind, the applicant, who was accused of committing heinous acts under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 328, 452, 323, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 5L, 5J/6, and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The victim, a minor, was found to be pregnant and later delivered a child. The prosecution alleged that Arvind had coerced the victim into a sexual relationship, resulting in her pregnancy.
The FIR was lodged by the victim’s mother on July 9, 2023, in Police Station Kyoladiya, District Bareilly. The DNA report later confirmed that Arvind was the biological father of the victim’s child.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Grant of Bail to the Accused:
The key issue before the court was whether the accused could be granted bail during the pendency of the trial, considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented, including the DNA report.
2. Prima Facie Evidence:
The DNA evidence established the applicant as the biological father of the child born to the victim, leaving little room for doubt regarding the allegations.
3. Impact of the Crime on the Victim:
The court delved into the broader implications of such crimes on the dignity, privacy, and mental well-being of victims, particularly minors.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Singh, while rejecting the bail application, remarked:
“Sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanizing act, is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity.”
The court highlighted the dual trauma faced by victims of such crimes—the act of rape itself and the subsequent trial. Observing the severity of the allegations and the supporting DNA evidence, the court found no merit in the defense’s arguments for bail.
The defence, represented by Advocate Imtyaz Ahmad, argued that the applicant was willing to marry the victim and provide for the child. However, since the proposed marriage had not materialized, the accused surrendered to authorities and sought bail. The prosecution, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), opposed the plea, stressing the heinous nature of the crime and the trauma inflicted upon the victim.
Case Details
– Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 56177 of 2023
– Opposite Parties: State of U.P. and three others
– Counsel for Applicant: Imtyaz Ahmad
– Counsel for Opposite Party: Additional Government Advocate
