# Aman @ Vansh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 38
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2322 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aman-vansh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51816
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363 & 376 - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Sections 3⁄4 , 27 - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
164A
-
Determination of Age - Counsel on behalf
of applicant submitted that victim was
falsely shown as minor of 16 years in FIR
to implicate applicant under provisions of
POCSO Act and secure his imprisonment -
Age of victim, as alleged in prosecution, is
refuted in view of judgment in Monish v.
St. of U.P. (infra) on grounds that the
victim's age is materially contradictory in
prosecution records - School records
showing
16
years
10
months
are
unreliable and incorrectly registered in
school records by victim's parents to give
her advantage in life - Victim St.d age as
15 years u/s 161 Cr.P.C - No medical
examination to determine victim's age
conducted at time of applicant's arrest, it
was subsequently carried out pursuant to
Court's order in Aman @ Vansh v. St. of
U.P. (infra) - Medical report opines
victim's age to be about 17 years, medical
report is flawed, infact victim was major -
Four-day delay in lodging FIR is fatal to
prosecution - Victim and applicant were
intimate, FIR arose from victim's family's
4 All. Aman @ Vansh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
39
opposition - In her Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C.
St.ments,
victim
admitted
intimacy, eloping to Delhi voluntarily, and
subsequently marrying applicant - No
allegation of rape was made in FIR or her
St.ments - Victim was never confined,
remained in public places, raised no alarm,
and did not resist, indicated consenting
party
-Held,
without
making
any
observations on merits of case, bail
application allowed. (Para 5, 6)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
व्यविगत बंि पर्त्र एिं दो प्रधतभू प्रस्तुत
करने पर परीक्षण के अंधतम रूप से
धनस्तारण तक, धनमन ितों के अिीन
अधिम जमानत पर ररिा हकया जाएगाः
- क- आिेदक, यहद आिश्यक िोगा तो
पुधिस अधिकारी द्वारा जॉच िेतु अपेम्क्षत
समय पर उपम्स्र्थत िोगा।

ख- आिेदक मामिे के तथ्यों
से पररधचत हकसी व्यवि या पुधिस
अधिकाररयों को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रूप से
कोई िमकी, िादा या प्रिोभन निीं देगा
म्जससे हक िि ऐसे तथ्य को न्यायािय
के समक्ष या हकसी पुधिस अधिकारी के
समक्ष प्रकर् न करने पर मान जाए।

ग- आिेदक अदाित की पूिज
अनुमधत के वबना भारत निीं िोडेगा;

घ-
आिेदक
को
प्रत्येक
धनिाजररत धतधर्थ पर ट्रायि कोर्ज के समक्ष
उपम्स्र्थत िोना िोगा, जब तक हक
व्यविगत उपम्स्र्थधत से िूर् न दी गयी
िो;

ड- आिेदक अधभयोजन पक्ष के
गिाि पर दबाि निीं डािेगा / िमकी
निीं देगा। च- आिेदक वििेचना एिं
विचारण के दौरान सियोग करेंगे और
जमानत की स्ितंर्त्रता का दुरुपयोग निीं
करेगा।
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 38
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2322 of 2024

Aman @ Vansh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363 & 376 - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Sections 3⁄4 , 27 - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
164A
-
Determination of Age - Counsel on behalf
of applicant submitted that victim was
falsely shown as minor of 16 years in FIR
to implicate applicant under provisions of
POCSO Act and secure his imprisonment -
Age of victim, as alleged in prosecution, is
refuted in view of judgment in Monish v.
St. of U.P. (infra) on grounds that the
victim's age is materially contradictory in
prosecution records - School records
showing
16
years
10
months
are
unreliable and incorrectly registered in
school records by victim's parents to give
her advantage in life - Victim St.d age as
15 years u/s 161 Cr.P.C - No medical
examination to determine victim's age
conducted at time of applicant's arrest, it
was subsequently carried out pursuant to
Court's order in Aman @ Vansh v. St. of
U.P. (infra) - Medical report opines
victim's age to be about 17 years, medical
report is flawed, infact victim was major -
Four-day delay in lodging FIR is fatal to
prosecution - Victim and applicant were
intimate, FIR arose from victim's family's
4 All. Aman @ Vansh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
39
opposition - In her Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C.
St.ments,
victim
admitted
intimacy, eloping to Delhi voluntarily, and
subsequently marrying applicant - No
allegation of rape was made in FIR or her
St.ments - Victim was never confined,
remained in public places, raised no alarm,
and did not resist, indicated consenting
party
-Held,
without
making
any
observations on merits of case, bail
application allowed. (Para 5, 6)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Junaid Vs St. of U.P. & anr.) reported at 2021
(6) ADJ 511, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
46998 of 2020

2. Monish Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021

3. Arvind Singh Vs St. of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
Home Deptt., Application U/S 482 No.2613 of
2023

4. Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar Vs St. of
U.P. reported at 2022 SCC Online All 623,
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16961 of 2022

5. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs St. of U.P.
reported at 2023 SCC Online All 734, Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.16871 of 2023

6. Noor Alam Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.53159 of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Matter is taken up in the revised
call.

2. Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya,
learned AGA-I for the State contends that
the police authorities in compliance of the
directions issued by this Court in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020
(Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another)
reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a
view to implement the provisions of
POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO
Rules,
2020,
have
served
the
bail
application upon the victim/legal guardian
as well as upon the CWC.

3. By means of the bail application
the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on
bail in Case Crime No.419 of 2023 at
Police Station-Shalimar Garden, DistrictGhaziabad under Sections 363, 376 IPC
and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act. The
applicant is in jail since 05.12.2023.

4. The bail application of the
applicant was rejected by the learned trial
court on 21.12.2023.

5. The following arguments made by
Shri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned
counsel on behalf of the applicant, which
could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri
Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the
informant
and
Shri
Paritosh
Kumar
Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record,
entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

1. The victim was wrongly shown
as a minor of 16 years in the F.I.R. only to
falsely implicate the applicant under the
stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and
cause his imprisonment.

2.The age of the victim set out in
the prosecution case is refuted in light of
the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) and
on the following grounds:

(i)
There
are
material
contradictions in the age of the victim as
recorded in various prosecution documents.

(ii) 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. There is no lawful
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
basis for the age related entry of the victim
in the school records. The school records
disclosing her age as 16 years and 10
months are unreliable.

(iii) The victim in her statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that
she is 15 years of age respectively.

6. The medical to determine the age
of the victim was not drawn up at the time
of arrest of the applicant. The medical of
the victim was subsequently drawn up on
the order passed by this Court on
12.03.2024 in the instant Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.2322 of 2024 (Aman
@ Vansh v. State of U.P. and 3 others).

The medical report opines that
the age of the victim is about 17 years.

Two submissions are made in
regard to the aforesaid medical report.
Firstly, the range of error in determining
the age is about two years and the same
should be read in favour of the applicant at
this stage. Secondly, the relevant scientific
parameters as per latest medical protocol
which would establish the majority of the
victim
has
been
excluded
from
consideration in the medical report. The
medical report is flawed. In fact the victim
is a major.

3. The incident occurred on
09.11.2023
and
the
F.I.R.
was
got
registered on 13.11.2023.

4. Delay of 4 days in lodgement
of the F.I.R. in the facts of this case is fatal
to the prosecution case.

5. The victim and the applicant
were intimate.

6. The F.I.R. is the result of
opposition of the victim's family to the said
relationship with the applicant.

7. The victim in her statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164
Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the
applicant. She has also asserted that she
eloped with the applicant to Delhi of her
own volition. The victim has lastly asserted
that she got married to the applicant.

8. No allegation of commission of
rape by the applicant with the victim was
made in the F.I.R. or in the statements of
the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and
164 Cr.P.C.

9. The victim was never confined
or bound down in any manner. The victim
was present at public places. She did not
raise an alarm nor did she resist the
applicant. Her conduct shows that she was
a consenting party.

10. Major inconsistencies in the
statements of the victim under Sections 161
Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as
the recitals in the F.I.R. discredit the
prosecution case.

11. The victim has declined to
undergo the medical examination.

12. The applicant does not have
any criminal history apart from the instant
case.

13. The applicant is not a flight
risk. The applicant being a law abiding
citizen has always cooperated with the
investigation and undertakes to join the
trial proceedings. There is no possibility of
his influencing witnesses, tampering with
the evidence or reoffending.

7. In the light of the preceding
discussion
and
without
making
any
observations on the merits of the case, the
bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Aman @ Vansh
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:-
4 All. Aman @ Vansh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
41

(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.

The learned trial court is directed
to fix the sureties after due application of
mind in light of the judgement rendered
by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of
U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.
(Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

9. The learned trial court shall
ensure that the right of bail of the
applicant granted by this Court is not
frustrated
by
arbitrary
demands
of
sureties or onerous conditions which are
unrelated to the socioeconomic status of
the applicant.

10.

Before
parting
some
observations have to be made which arise
in the facts of this case but also become
applicable to large number of matters
arising before this Court.

11. This Court has consistently held
that while sitting in the bail determination
the High Court is not denuded of its
constitutional status. The bail jurisdiction
though created under the statute is also a
constitutional
jurisdiction
of
first
importance since the most precious right
of life and liberty are engaged in the
process
of
consideration
of
bail.
Consequently when legal issues which
directly impact the life and liberty of a
citizen arise during consideration of a
bail application, the Court has to squarely
deal with this issues.

[See: 1. (Anil Gaur @ Sonu @
Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. reported
at 2022 SCC Online All 623) (Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.16961 of
2022)

2.
(Bhanwar
Singh
@
Karamvir v. State of U.P. reported at
2023 SCC Online All 734) (Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.16871 of 2023)

3.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.53159 of 2021 (Noor
Alam v. State of U.P.).]

12. In the instant case as in a large
number of bail applications under the
POCSO Act, issues relating to the age of
the victims having serious consequences on
the life and liberty of accused persons arise
for consideration.

13. This Court has been finding that
in the large number of cases the age of the
victim set out in the prosecution case is
often at variance with the age determined
by the expert medical boards in accordance
with the latest medical protocols. At times
there are multiple contradictions in age
related documents available with the
prosecution. Numerous cases of false
implication and abuse of POCSO Act have
also been noticed. Runaway couples of
young age are criminalized in the process.
The age determined by the Medical Board
has several benefits:-

(a) The said report may prove to
be a reliable piece of evidence in the case.

(b) The said medical reports will
assist the process of law and enable the
courts to make a conclusive finding on the
victim's age after considering all evidences
in the record.

(c) The said medical reports
determining the victim's age at the very
outset will also help prevent misuse of the
POCSO Act.

(d) The said medical reports are
relatable to specific provisions of law.
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. The importance of medical reports
in the criminal investigation process was
recognized
by
the
legislature
while
incorporating Section 164-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The provision is
extracted hereunder:

"Section
164A.
Medical
examination of the victim of rape.-(1)
Where, during the stage when an offence of
committing rape or attempt to commit rape
is under investigation, it is proposed to get
the person of the woman with whom rape is
alleged
or
attempted
to
have
been
committed or attempted, examined by a
medical expert, such examination shall be
conducted
by
a
registered
medical
practitioner employed in a hospital run by
the Government or a local authority and in
the absence of such a practitioner, by any
other registered medical practitioner, with
the consent of such woman or of a person
competent to give such consent on her
behalf and such woman shall be sent to
such registered medical practitioner within
twenty-four hours from the time of
receiving the information relating to the
commission of such offence.

(2)
The
registered
medical
practitioner, to whom such woman is sent
shall, without delay, examine her person
and prepare a report of his examination
giving the following particulars, namely-

(i) the name and address of the
woman and of the person by whom she was
brought;

(ii) the age of the woman;

(iii) the description of material
taken from the person of the woman for
DNA profiling;

(iv) marks of injury, if any, on the
person of the woman;

(v) general mental condition of
the woman; and

(vi) other material particulars in
reasonable detail,

(3)
The
report
shall
state
precisely the reasons for each conclusion
arrived at.

(4) The report shall specifically
record that the consent of the woman or of
the person competent, to give such consent
on her behalf to such examination had been
obtained.

(5)
The
exact
time
of
commencement and completion of the
examination shall also be noted in the
report.

(6)
The
registered
medical
practitioner shall, without delay forward
the report to the investigating officer who
shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to
in section 173 as part of the documents
referred to in clause (a) of Sub-Section (5)
of that section.

(7) Nothing in this section shall
be construed as rendering lawful any
examination without the consent of the
woman or of any person competent to give
such consent on her behalf."

15. In this context reference to
Section 27 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 can also
be profitably made in support of the
narrative. Section 27 of the POCSO Act
reads as under:

"Section
27.
Medical
examination of a child.-(1) The medical
examination of a child in respect of whom
any offence has been committed under this
Act, shall, notwithstanding that a First
Information Report or complaint has not
been registered for the offences under this
Act, be conducted in accordance with
section 164A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1973).
4 All. Aman @ Vansh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
43

(2) In case the victim is a girl
child, the medical examination shall be
conducted by a woman doctor.

(3) The medical examination
shall be conducted in the presence of the
parent of the child or any other person in
whom the child reposes trust or confidence.

(4) Where, in case the parent of
the child or other person referred to in subsection (3) cannot be present, for any
reason, during the medical examination of
the child, the medical examination shall be
conducted in the presence of a woman
nominated by the head of the medical
institution."

16. Wide ambit of the provision
embraces various kinds of medical reports
including a medical report determining the
victim's age in POCSO Act offences. The
provision contemplates that medical reports
to determine the age of victims be drawn
up by
competent
professionals
from
eminent institutions in accordance with the
latest scientific parameters and medical
protocols. Further the said medical reports
have to be presented to the Court at the
earliest for assisting the process of law.

17. False depiction of a victim as a
minor in POCSO Act cases is an abuse of
the process of court. Complications caused
by false depiction of a victim as minor and
contradictions in age related documents
were also examined by this Court in
Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
55026 of 2021).

18. In numerous cases the age
determined
by
the
Medical
Board
contradicted the minority of the victim set
up in the prosecution case. Illustrative list
of POCSO Act of such cases before this
Court where the Medical Board opined that
the victim was a major is appended as
appendix-Ii.

19. This Court is finding that in many
instances
the
accused-applicants
have
argued that medical determination of the
victim's age was not got done deliberately
as it would establish the majority of the
victim and repudiate the prosecution case.
By falsely depicting the victim as a minor
the accused persons are wrongly implicated
under the stringent regime of the POCSO
Act
only
to
cause
their
indefinite
imprisonment. Reference of such cases by
way of exemplars is appended as appendixIIii.

20. There is a third category of cases.
Despite the statutory mandate the medical
report to determine the victim's age is not
drawn up and made part of investigations in
a majority of cases. Absence of medical
report determining the age of a victim came
in the way of the Court dispensing equal
justice. In these cases this Court has
developed a practice to call for such
reports. An exemplar list of this set of cases
is appended as Appendix-IIIiii.

21. Medical Report determining the
age of a POCSO Act offence is an
imperative requirement of law and an
absolute necessity of justice.

22. In the wake of the preceding
discussion the following directions are
issued:

1.
The
police
authorities/investigation
officers
shall
ensure that in every POCSO Act offence a
medical report determining the victim's age
shall be drawn up at the outset under
Section 164A of the Criminal Procedure
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code read with Section 27 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. The report may be dispensed with if
medical opinion advises against it in the
interests of the victim's health.

2.
The
medical
report
determining the age of the victim shall be
created as per established procedure of law
and in adherence to latest scientific
parameters and medical protocol.

3.
The
medical
report
determining the age of the victim shall be
submitted under Section 164-A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to the Court without
delay.

4. The Director General (Health),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
shall also ensure that the doctors who
comprise the Medical Board are duly
trained and follow the established medical
protocol and scientific parameters for
determining the age of the victims in such
cases. Constant research shall be done in
this field to keep the reports in line with the
latest scientific developments.

A
copy
of
this
order
be
communicated by the learned Government
Advocate to the Director General of Police,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh for compliance
and Director General (Health), Government
of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

Appendix-I

1.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.7172 of 2024 (Balakram
Chaurasiya v. State Of UP And 3 Others)

2.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.42249 of 2023 (Surendra
Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)

3.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.39386 of 2023 (Rakesh
Yadav Urf Saral v. State Of U.P. And 3
Others)

4.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.7382 of 2024 (Lakshman
@ Laxman v. State Of UP And 3 Others)

5.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.7957 of 2024(Shiva Vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others)

6.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 403 of 2024(Rahul Kumar
vs. State Of Up And 3 Others)

7.Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 7384 of 2024 (Nanhe Alias
Rambaran v. State Of Up And 3 Others)

8.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.5675 of 2024(Dalveer v.
State Of UP and 3 Others)

9.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.6970 of 2024 (Yogendra v.
State Of Up 3 Others)

10.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 55899 of 2023 (Devendra
Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)

11.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.807 of 2024(Bunti v. State
of U.P.)

12.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.2039 of 2024(Akhilesh
Kumar Yadav v. State Of Up And 3
Others)

13.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.7328 of 2024(Arun Alias
Happy v. State Of UP And 3 Others)

14.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.7263 of 2024 (Mohammad
Kalam v. State Of Up And 3 Others)

15.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 6553 of 2024(Vikas v.
State Of Up And 3 Others)

16.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 6592 of 2024 (Sonu @
Shanu v. State Of Up And 3 Others)

17.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.6066 of 2024 (Guddu v.
State Of UP And 3 Others)
4 All. Aman @ Vansh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
45

18.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.12178 of 2024 (Bullet
Gupta @ Shivkumar Sah v. State of U.P.

19.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.2048 of 2024(Bhonu v.
State Of UP 3 Others)

20.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.4577 of 2024 (Pinku v. State
of U.P. and 3 others)

Appendix-II

1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 5180 of 2024 (Chhotu Rajbhar @
Melhu v. State Of UP Others)

2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.56492 of 2023 (Sudhir Gautam v. State
Of U.P. And 3 Others )

3. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 7227 of 2024 (Vikas @ Chhotu v. State
Of UP)

4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 26264 of 2023 (Jitendra Kumar v. State
Of U.P. And 3 Others)

5. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.5820 of 2024 (Arun Saini v. State Of UP
And 3 Others)

6. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 55331 of 2023 (Udai Varma v. State Of
U.P. And 3 Others)

7. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.16086 of 2023 (Kunnu Raidas @
Shishupal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)

8. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.12866 of 2024 (Mahesh Yadav v. State
of U.P. and 3 others)

9. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.932 of 2024 (Monu Chauhan v. State Of
UP Others)

10.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.24294 of 2023 (Shamshad
Khan v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)

11.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.5926 of 2024(Lucky v. State
Of UP And 3 Others)

12.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.5107 of 2024 (Rajeev @
Rana vs. State Of UP And 3 Others)

13.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 4101 of 2024 (Sani S/O
Bhaiyalal v. State Of UP Through Principal
Secretary Gov Of Up Lucknow)

14.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.4294 of 2024 (Rajesh v.
State Of Up And 3 Others)

15.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.5472 of 2024 (Lallu v. State
Of UP And 3 Others)

16.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 7358 of 2024 (Rahul Alias
Gandhi v. State Of UP And 3 Others)

17.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 6583 of 2024 (Adesh
Yadav v. State Of UP And 3 Others)

18.Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 5959 of 2024 Ravi Kumar
v. State Of UP 3 Others)

19.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 6022 of 2024 (Vikas v.
State Of UP And 3 Others)

20.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.7679 of 2024 (Faisal Khan
@ Nabi Hussain v. State Of U.P. And 3
Others)

Appendix-III

1.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.7292 of 2024 (Chhotu @
Rishabh v. State of U.P. and 3 others)

2.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.5481 of 2024 (Mohd. Saif
v. State of U.P. and 3 others)

3.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.1458 of 2024 (Tausif Ali v.
State of U.P. and 3 others)

4.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.355 of 2024 (Pradeep
Kumar @ Pradeep Vishwakarma v. State of
U.P. and others)
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.4282 of 2024 (Saroj Sonkar
v. State of U.P. and others)
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 46
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Civil Revision No. 130 of 2022

Smt. Kinder Jeet Kaur ...Revisionist
Versus
Karamjeet Singh ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Smt. Archana Singh, Sri Shrreeprakash
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Order VI Rule 17 - Section 115 - Civil
Revision Against Rejection of Amendment to
Written Statement- Specific Performance of
Agreement to Sell - Liberal Approach to
Amendments of Written Statement- Non-Joinder
of Parties - Fraud and Misrepresentation
Defense - The plaintiff-respondent, Karamjeet
Singh, a Non-Resident Indian, instituted O.S.
No. 203 of 2021 for specific performance of a
registered agreement to sell dated 30.11.2018,
executed by defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4
(Jagtar Singh and Smt. Sukhraj Kaur) for
agricultural land (2.0305 hectares) in Village
Shekhupura, Tehsil Swar, District Rampur, for
Rs.78,52,000, with Rs.70 lakhs paid as earnest.
The suit also sought cancellation of gift deeds
dated 29.02.2020 executed by defendantrevisionists Nos. 3 and 4 in favor of defendantrevisionists Nos. 1 and 2 (Smt. Kinder Jeet Kaur,
wife of Jagtar Singh, and their minor son,
Gurudeep Singh Sandhu), and a permanent
injunction against further transfers. Defendantrevisionists Nos. 3 and 4, in their written
St.ment, alleged fraud by Balkar Singh and
associates,
claiming
the
agreement
was
misrepresented as a power of attorney for UK
immigration and farm management, executed
without consideration. They sought to amend
their written St.ment: (1) substituting "र्था" for
"िै" in paragraph 29 to clarify that Balkar Singh
managed their farming in the past, not
currently, and (2) adding paragraph 55(अ) to
plead non-joinder of Balkar Singh and others as
necessary parties due to their alleged role in the
fraud. The Civil Judge (Sr. DiVs), Rampur,
rejected
the
amendment
application
on
06.07.2022, citing the proviso to Order VI Rule
17 (post-trial commencement bar) and lack of
necessity to implead non-parties to the contract,
relying on Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs
Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 8 SCC 384.
Held: The revision was allowed, setting aside
the
trial
court's
order,
finding:
(1)
the
amendment to paragraph 29 was not a
withdrawal of admission but an elaboration
aligning with the defense of fraud, causing no
prejudice to the plaintiff, per St. of Bihar Vs
Modern Tent House, (2017) 8 SCC 567, and
Baldev Singh Vs Manohar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC
498; (2) the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 is not
inflexible, and amendments to written St.ments
are
judged
liberally,
even
post-trial
commencement, per Abdul Rehman Vs Mohd.
Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341; (3) the addition of
paragraph 55(अ) raised a non-joinder plea
regarding parties allegedly involved in fraud,
distinguishable
from
Vidur
Impex,
which
involved
third-party
purchasers,
and
was
permissible as it supported the defense without
altering the suit's nature; (4) the trial court's
failure to apply liberal standards for written
Statementamendments constituted a failure to
exercise
jurisdiction,
warranting
revisional
interference under Section 115 CPC. The
amendment application was allowed, and the
suit's
proceedings
were
directed
to
be
expedited.

List of Cases cited:

1. Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tosh
Apartments Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 8 SCC 384

2. St. of Bihar Vs Modern Tent House, (2017) 8
SCC 567