# Jeetan Lodh @ Jitendra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 20
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-11
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4824 of 2023
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jeetan-lodh-jitendra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50094
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 376, 452 & 506 - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3/4, Section
33
(8)
-
Special
Court
may
pay
compensation to children for any physical
or mental trauma for rehabilitation, The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences
Rules,
2020
-
Rule
9
-
Compensation,
The
Code
of
criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 164 - Prosecutrix
became hostile - denied allegation of rape
against applicant. (Para -8 )
HELD:-If victim became hostile and does not
support
prosecution
case,
amount
of
compensation given to the victim or family
member should be recovered by the authorities
concerned who have paid the compensation.
State Government should pass orders and issue
directions
to
the
authorities
to
recover
compensation.(Para -11,12 )

Bail application allowed. (E-7)

## Text

20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

55. Registrar (compliance) is also
directed to communicate this order to
District Judge concerned for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 20
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4824 of 2023

Jeetan Lodh @ Jitendra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradyumn Shukla, Qasim Abbas Zaidi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 376, 452 & 506 - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3/4, Section
33
(8)
-
Special
Court
may
pay
compensation to children for any physical
or mental trauma for rehabilitation, The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences
Rules,
2020
-
Rule
9
-
Compensation,
The
Code
of
criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 164 - Prosecutrix
became hostile - denied allegation of rape
against applicant. (Para -8 )
HELD:-If victim became hostile and does not
support
prosecution
case,
amount
of
compensation given to the victim or family
member should be recovered by the authorities
concerned who have paid the compensation.
State Government should pass orders and issue
directions
to
the
authorities
to
recover
compensation.(Para -11,12 )

Bail application allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Sri Arvind Mishra has filed his
power on behalf of O.P. No.2, complainant
which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

3. This bail application has been filed
by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge
him on bail in Case Crime No.225 of 2022
under Section 376, 452, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS Gangaghat
distt. Unnao.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that PW-2 prosecutrix has
not supported the prosecution case in crossexamination. She has deposed before the
Court that she could not identify the person
who committed rape against her. She has
further stated that she had not seen the face
of the person who committed rape. She has
further stated that there is no enmity
between her family and the applicant. It has
been submitted that prosecutrix has totally
denied version of FIR as well as the version
of 164 CrPC before the Court. Once she
has denied the version under Section 164
CrPC and the FIR, at the moment the
applicant may not be held guilty and he is
liable to be granted bail. He has further
submitted that the PW-1 brother who is
complainant has also not supported the
prosecution case. The brother has stated
that some other person had written FIR and
he cannot read Hindi language, therefore,
he could not come to know how the FIR
was lodged. He has submitted that the
applicant has no criminal history and he is
in Jail since 20.5.2022.
4 All. Jeetan Lodh @ Jitendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
21

5. On the other hand, Sri Arvind
Mishra learned counsel for the complainant
and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh learned AGAI have opposed the bail and submitted that
version of FIR and statement under Section
164 CrPC are intact and in examination-inchief, the prosecutrix reiterated the version
of FIR as well as statement under Section
164 CrPC, therefore, the bail prayer be
rejected.

6. Considering the over all facts and
circumstances of the case, particular the
cross-examination
version
of
the
prosecutrix PW-2, who deposed before the
Court that she could not identify the person
who committed rape against her and the
version of the brother who is complainant,
who has also not supported the prosecution
case, it is a fit case for bail.

7. Let the applicant Jeetan Lodh @
Jitendra be released on bail in the above
case crime number on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of Court
concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses
the liberty of bail during trial and in order
to secure his presence proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
applicant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the
opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial court
to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail
and proceed against him in accordance with
law.

It
is
made
clear
that
the
observations made in this order are limited to
the purpose of determination of this bail
application and will in no way be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case.
The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to
arrive at its independent conclusions on the
basis of evidence led unaffected by anything
in this order.

8. Before parting with the case, Sri
Rajesh Kumar Singh learned AGA-I for State
has pointed out that in rape cases as well as
sexual offence against minor, the victim and
her family is provided financial assistance.
He has submitted that in the present case, the
prosecutrix has become hostile and she has
denied the allegation of rape against the
applicant. Thus, the compensation amount if
any, paid to the victim or her family should
be recovered back. He has invited attention of
this Court towards Section 33 (8) of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 which is quoted below:-

"(8) In appropriate cases, the
Special Court may, in addition to the
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punishment,
direct
payment
of
such
compensation as may be prescribed to the
child for any physical or mental trauma
caused
to
him
or
for
immediate
rehabilitation of such child."

9. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh learned
AGA-I has further invited attention of this
Court towards Rule 9 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020
which is quoted below:-

"9.
Compensation.--(1)
The
Special Court may, in appropriate cases, on
its own or on an application filed by or on
behalf of the child, pass an order for interim
compensation to meet the needs of the child
for relief or rehabilitation at any stage after
registration of the First Information Report.
Such interim compensation paid to the child
shall
be
adjusted
against
the
final
compensation, if any.

(2) The Special Court may, on its
own or on an application filed by or on
behalf of the victim, recommend the award
of compensation where the accused is
convicted, or where the case ends in
acquittal or discharge, or the accused is
not traced or identified, and in the opinion
of the Special Court the child has suffered
loss or injury as a result of that offence.

(3) Where the Special Court,
under sub-section (8) of section 33 of the
Act read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of
section 357A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) makes a
direction for the award of compensation to
the victim, it shall take into account all
relevant factors relating to the loss or
injury caused to the victim, including the
following:-

(i) type of abuse, gravity of the
offence and the severity of the mental or
physical harm or injury suffered by the
child;

(ii) the expenditure incurred or
likely to be incurred on child's medical
treatment for physical or mental health or
on both;

(iii)
loss
of
educational
opportunity as a consequence of the
offence, including absence from school due
to mental trauma, bodily injury, medical
treatment, investigation and trial of the
offence, or any other reason;

(iv) loss of employment as a
result of the offence, including absence
from place of employment due to mental
trauma, bodily injury, medical treatment,
investigation and trial of the offence, or
any other reason;

(v) the relationship of the child to
the offender, if any;

(vi) whether the abuse was a
single isolated incidence or whether the
abuse took place over a period of time;

(vii) whether the child became
pregnant as a result of the offence;

(viii) whether the child contracted
a sexually transmitted disease (STD) as a
result of the offence;

(ix) whether the child contracted
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a
result of the offence;

(x) any disability suffered by the
child as a result of the offence;

(xi) financial condition of the
child against whom the offence has been
committed so as to determine such child's
need for rehabilitation;

(xii) any other factor that the
Special Court may consider to be relevant.

(4) The compensation awarded by
the Special Court is to be paid by the State
Government
from
the
Victims
Compensation Fund or other scheme or
fund established by it for the purposes of
compensating and rehabilitating victims
under section 357A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the
4 All. Jeetan Lodh @ Jitendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
23
time being in force, or, where such fund or
scheme does not exist, by the State
Government.

(5) The State Government shall
pay the compensation ordered by the
Special Court within 30 days of receipt of
such order.

(6 Nothing in these rules shall
prevent a child or child's parent or
guardian or any other person in whom
the child has trust and confidence from
submitting an application for seeking
relief under any other rules or scheme of
the
Central
Government
or
State
Government."

10. It has further been submitted by
the learned AGA that in compliance of the
aforesaid
Act
and
Rules,
various
Government orders have been issued by the
State Government of U.P. i.e., on 9.4.2014,
7.6.2016
and
14.6.2016.
The
last
Government order for paying compensation
is issued by the State Government of U.P.
on 14.6.2016. The Government order dated
14.6.2016 has been passed whereby the
earlier Government order dated 9.4.2014
has
been
amended
for
providing
compensation
to
the
victim
of
the
categories mentioned in the Government
order dated 7.6.2016. The relevant portion
of the said Government order dated
14.6.2016 is quoted below:-

1), Rs.3,00,000/- for the victim of
rape;

2) Rs. 1,00,000/- for the victim
suffering from loss or injury causing severe
mental agony to the victim of the crime
(under Section 325, 326, 333, 394, 429,
435 and 436 IPC;

3) Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim of
corrosive substance i..e, acid attack etc.;

4) Rs.1,50,000/- on death (nonearning member).

5)
Rs.2,00,000/-
on
death
(earning member).

6) Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim of
human trafficking.

7) For offences under Section 4,
6, 7, 9, 11 and 14 of the Protection of the
Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012:-

(a) Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim of
penetrative sexual assault (Section 4).

(b) Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim of
aggravated
penetrative
sexual
assault
(Section 6).

(c) Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim of
sexual assault (Section 7).

(d) Rs.1,50,000/- to the victim of
aggravated sexual assault (Section 9).

(e) Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim of
sexual harassment (Section 11).

(f) Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim of
using child for pornographic purpose
(Section 14).

8) Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim of
burns affecting greater than 25% of the
body (excluding acid attack cases).

9) Rs.50,000/- to the victim of
sexual assault (excluding rape).

10) Rs.50,000/- to the victim of
loss of foetus.

11) Rs.1,50,000/- to the victim of
loss of fertility.

12) Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim of
permanent disability (80% or more).

13) Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim of
partial disability (40% to 80%).

14 Women victims of cross
border firing:-

(a) Rs. 2,00,000/- victim of death
or permanent disability (80% or more).

(b) Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim of
partial disability (40% to 80%).

11. Now, the question has cropped up
before me as to whether, the prosetrix who
has become hostile is entitled to retain the
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of compensation. In my opinion, if
the victim has become hostile and does not
support the prosecution case at all, it is
appropriate to recover the amount if paid to
the victim. The victim is the person who
comes before the Court and during trial if
she denies the allegation of rape and
becomes hostile, there is no justification to
keep the amount of compensation provided
by the State Government. The State
Exchequer cannot be burdened like this and
there is all possibility of misuse of the laws.
Therefore, in my opinion, the amount of
compensation given to the victim or the
family member, is liable to be recovered by
the authorities concerned who have paid
the compensation.

12. Therefore, considering the above
aspect of the matter, it is directed that the
State Government will pass appropriate
orders and issue necessary directions to the
authorities concerned to recover the amount
of compensation if paid, in the cases, where
the victim has become hostile during trial
and not supported the prosecution. Let
necessary exercise be done within a period
of three months.

13. The Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to send a copy of this order to
the Chief Secretary of Government of Uttar
Pradesh for necessary compliance.

14. List this case in the second week
of August and learned AGA will submit
progress report.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 24
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Crl. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 30489 of 2022

Neeraj ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ali Hasan, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
Section - 439 - Indian Penal Code,
Sections 328, 376 & 506 - Protection Of
Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO)
Act, Sections 3 & 4 - Second Bail Application -
FIR - offence of Rape, threat and dire
consequences - court finds that, applicant is in
jail since second day of incident but, trial has
not been concluded - charges were framed since
informant and victim are not traceable therefore
case could not be produced for trial - applicant
does not have any criminal history - Held, Case
as well as keeping in view the nature of the
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and
submissions of learned counsel for parties, this
Court is of the opinion that applicant has made
out a case for bail - hence, bail application is
hereby
allowed
-
directions
issued
for
compliance, accordingly. (Para - 18, 19, 22, 23,
26)

Bail Application Allowed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The prosecution case commenced
on the basis of first information report
lodged by Khushi Ram, who is the brother
of the victim (hereinafter referred to as 'the
first informant') on 22.6.2016 against the
applicant Neeraj to the effect that on
21.6.2016 when his family members were
sleeping, the applicant entered the house
and caused them to smell certain intoxicant,
due to which they became unconscious.
Thereafter, the applicant committed rape on