# Neeraj Raidas v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1968
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10123 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-raidas-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51913
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 161, 164, 309 & 439 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections - 323
& 376 - The Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 -
Section - 3, 4, 29, 35(2) - Application for Bail
- FIR - allegation of committing rape forcibly -
grounds of bail that, applicant is languishing in
jail since long time, - prosecutrix is the
consenting party with the applicant, - her
St.ment was recorded under the pressure of her
family, - entire story is false, fabricated and
developed by the complainant - and he has no
any criminal history - court observed that, -
5 All. Neeraj Raidas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1969
prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of
incident - considering the entire St.ment
recorded u/s 164 Cr.p.c. she has levelled specific
allegation of offence of rape against the present
applicant which is subject to final determination
by the learned trial court - hence, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case as well
as the dictums of the Apex Court, the bail
application is rejected - further, trial court has
directed to conclude the trial within a period of
nine months, direction issued accordingly -
however, applicant has a liberty to file another
bail application, if the trial is not concluded
within the stipulated time. (Para -11, 16, 18,
19)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of
law i.e. Section 375 IPC, Section 5/6 of
POCSO Act, I do not find any substance in
the arguments of learned counsel for the
applicant, looking to the peculiar facts and
circumstance of the present case, that I am
conscious about the fact that the guilt of any
person can be established before the
learned trial court and no observation
should be given affecting the trial, but on
the basis of aforesaid material available on
record, prima facie, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the present applicant.

23. Accordingly, the bail application
is rejected on merits.

24. Since the present applicant is in
jail since 31.03.2022 and the trial in
POCSO cases should be conducted and
concluded with expedition, preferably
within a period of one year in terms of
Section 35 (2) of the POCSO Act, therefore,
I hereby direct the learned Trial Court to
conclude the trial within a period of nine
months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order taking recourse of Section 309
Cr.P.C. by fixing short dates, if possible, fix
dates on day-to-day basis to ensure that the
examination of all prosecution witnesses
and other witnesses from both the sides, if
any, be completed expeditiously and if any
of the witnesses does not cooperate in the
trial proceedings properly, the learned Trial
Court may take appropriate coercive steps
against such witness, which is permissible
under the law. Further, no unnecessary
adjournment shall be given to any of the
parties so that the trial in question could be
concluded within the time so stipulated.

25. However, liberty is given to the
applicant to file another bail application, if
the trial is not concluded within the
aforesaid stipulated time.

26. Let copy of this order be provided
to the learned Trial Court through District
& Sessions Judge, Unnao by the Registry of
this Court within three working days for its
strict compliance.

27. Before parting with, I appreciate
the efforts and research made by Shri
Piyush
Tripathi,
Research
Associate
attached with me, in finding out the
relevant case laws applicable in the present
case.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1968
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10123 of
2022

Neeraj Raidas ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Vijay Kumar, Alok Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 161, 164, 309 & 439 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections - 323
& 376 - The Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 -
Section - 3, 4, 29, 35(2) - Application for Bail
- FIR - allegation of committing rape forcibly -
grounds of bail that, applicant is languishing in
jail since long time, - prosecutrix is the
consenting party with the applicant, - her
St.ment was recorded under the pressure of her
family, - entire story is false, fabricated and
developed by the complainant - and he has no
any criminal history - court observed that, -
5 All. Neeraj Raidas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1969
prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of
incident - considering the entire St.ment
recorded u/s 164 Cr.p.c. she has levelled specific
allegation of offence of rape against the present
applicant which is subject to final determination
by the learned trial court - hence, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case as well
as the dictums of the Apex Court, the bail
application is rejected - further, trial court has
directed to conclude the trial within a period of
nine months, direction issued accordingly -
however, applicant has a liberty to file another
bail application, if the trial is not concluded
within the stipulated time. (Para -11, 16, 18,
19)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of H.P. Vs Asha Ram, (2005) 13 SCC 766,

2. Ganesan Vs St. represented by its Inspector
of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 573,

3. Vijay Vs St. of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 191,

4. St. of Mah. Vs Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550,

5. St. of U.P. Vs Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594,

6. St. of Punj. Vs Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC
384,

7. St. of Orissa Vs Thakara Besra, (2002) 9 SCC
86,

8. Krishan Kumar Malik Vs St. of Har., (2011) 7
SCC 130.

9. Phool Singh Vs St. of M. P., (2022) 2 SCC 74,

10. Sham Singh Vs St. of Har., (2018) 18 SCC 34.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajnish
Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A., however,
no one has appeared on behalf of the
informant/ complainant.

2. As per learned counsel for the
applicant, the present applicant is in jail
since 02.05.2022 in Case Crime No.227 of
2022, under Sections 323, 376 IPC and
Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Bilgram, District- Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the present applicant has
been falsely implicated in the case as he has
not committed any offence as alleged. As
per prosecution story so narrated in the FIR,
the present applicant has made wrong deeds
with the daughter of the complainant/
informant, who is aged about eighteen
years. As per the FIR, when the daughter of
the complainant at about 8.00 P.M. went to
defecate in the field, at that time the
applicant came there and committed rape
forcibly with her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the entire
prosecution story is false and concocted
inasmuch as the prosecutrix is major in age
and she is the consenting party with the
applicant and the prosecutrix is mentally fit
but she is unable to speak and due to this
reason, false and fabricated story was
developed by the complainant against the
present applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further drawn attention of this Court
towards Annexure No.5 of the bail
application, which is the statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C., wherein her statement has been
recorded under pressure of her family
members and this fact also reveals from the
perusal of statement under Section 164
1970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. where she first time stated that the
applicant has torn her cloths.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also submitted that the prosecution has
not submitted any educational document of
the prosecutrix and only on the basis of
Aadhar Card and Medical Report, Section
3/4 POCSO Act has been added.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has reiterated that the present applicant has
no previous criminal history, therefore, the
present applicant undertakes that he shall
not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted
by this court and shall abide by all terms
and conditions of the bail order and shall
cooperate in the trial proceedings.

8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the
applicant and has submitted that the offence
in question is so heinous in nature,
therefore, the present applicant may not be
released on bail. He has drawn attention of
this Court towards Annexure No.5 of the
bail application, which is the statement of
the prosecutrix recorded under section 164
of Cr.P.C., wherein in the presence of
special instructor, the victim/prosecutrix
after seeing the photocopy of driving
licence of the applicant has identified that
he is the one who tore my cloth and forcibly
committed rape.

9. Learned A.G.A. has further drawn
attention of this court towards Annexure
No.6, which is the copy of medical report,
wherein the radiological age of the
victim/prosecutrix is about 17 years.
Hymen was not found, which supports the
prosecution story, and also the statement of
the prosecutrix/victim recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C has reiterated the
version of statement recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C, therefore, the present applicant
may not be released on bail.

10. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, at the very outset, I
would like to observe that the prosecutrix/
child, who was below 18 years at the time
of incident, recorded her statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. levelling specific
allegation against the present applicant of
committing rape with her. The entire
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. is read, the fact would emerge that
in such statement, she has levelled specific
allegation of rape against the present
applicant.

11. In the statement of the prosecutrix/
child recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
she has levelled specific allegation against
the present applicant that he has committed
rape with her forcibly. This is the case
where the prosecutrix/ child is a minor girl,
therefore, the applicant with the intention to
commit rape with her in that case, prima
facie, the offence in question would be the
offence
of
rape
subject
to
final
determination by the learned Trial Court..

12. The Apex Court in re; State of
H.P. Vs. Asha Ram, (2005) 13 SCC 766,
has observed in para-5, which reads as
under:-

"5. We record our displeasure and
dismay, the way the High Court dealt
casually with an offence so grave, as in the
case at hand, overlooking the alarming and
shocking increase of sexual assault on
minor girls. The High Court was swayed by
the sheer insensitivity, totally oblivious of
the growing menace of sexual violence
against minors much less by the father. The
High Court also totally overlooked the
5 All. Neeraj Raidas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1971
prosecution
evidence,
which
inspired
confidence and merited acceptance. It is
now a well-settled principle of law that
conviction can be founded on the testimony
of the prosecutrix alone unless there are
compelling
reasons
for
seeking
corroboration.
The
evidence
of
a
prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an
injured witness. The testimony of the victim
of sexual assault is vital, unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate
looking for corroboration of her statement,
the courts should find no difficulty in acting
on the testimony of a victim of sexual
assault alone to convict an accused where
her testimony inspires confidence and is
found to be reliable. It is also a well-settled
principle of law that corroboration as a
condition for judicial reliance on the
testimony of the prosecutrix is not a
requirement of law but a guidance of
prudence under the given circumstances.
The evidence of the prosecutrix is more
reliable than that of an injured witness.
Even minor contradictions or insignificant
discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix should not be a ground for
throwing
out
an
otherwise
reliable
prosecution case."

13. The Apex Court in re; Ganesan
Vs. State represented by its Inspector of
Police, (2020) 10 SCC 573, while
considering the judgments of Vijay v. State
of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191, State of
Maharashtra
v.
Chandraprakash
Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550,
State of U.P. Vs. Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC
594, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh,
(1996) 2 SCC 384, State of Orissa v.
Thakara Besra, (2002) 9 SCC 86 and
Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of
Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 has observed
that to hold an accused guilty for
commission of an offence of rape, the
solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is
sufficient, provided the same inspires
confidence and appears to be absolutely
trustworthy, unblemished and should be of
sterling quality.

14. In the case of Pappu (supra), the
Apex Court has held that even in a case
where it is shown that the girl is a girl of
easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual
intercourse, it may not be a ground to
absolve the accused from the charge of
rape. It has to be established that there was
consent by her for that particular occasion
and that consent should be free consent.

15. The Apex Court in re; Phool
Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022)
2 SCC 74, has considered the judgment of
Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2018)
18 SCC 34, wherein the Apex Court has
observed that the testimony of the victim is
vital and unless there are compelling
reasons which necessitate looking for
corroboration of her statement, the courts
should find no difficulty to act on the
testimony of the victim of sexual assault
alone to convict an accused where her
testimony inspires confidence and is found
to be reliable.

16. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case as
well as the dictums of the Apex Court, as
considered above, I am not inclined to grant
bail to the present applicant.

17. Accordingly, the bail application
is rejected.

18. Since the present applicant is in
jail since 02.05.2022 and the trial in
POCSO cases should be conducted and
concluded with expedition, preferably
within a period of one year in terms of
1972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 35 (2) of the POCSO Act, therefore,
I hereby direct the learned Trial Court to
conclude the trial within a period of nine
months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order taking recourse of Section 309
Cr.P.C. by fixing short dates, if possible, fix
dates on day-to-day basis to ensure that the
examination of all prosecution witnesses
and other witnesses from both the sides, if
any, be completed expeditiously and if any
of the witnesses does not cooperate in the
trial proceedings properly, the learned Trial
Court may take appropriate coercive steps
against such witness, which is permissible
under the law. Further, no unnecessary
adjournment shall be given to any of the
parties so that the trial in question could be
concluded within the time so stipulated.

19. However, liberty is given to the
applicant to file another bail application, if
the trial is not concluded within the
aforesaid stipulated time.

20. Let copy of this order be provided
to the learned Trial Court through District
& Sessions Judge, Hardoi by the Registry
of this Court within three working days for
its strict compliance.

21. Before parting with, I appreciate
the efforts and research made by Shri
Piyush
Tripathi,
Research
Associate
attached with me, in finding out the
relevant case laws applicable in the present
case.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1972
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Civil Revision No. 35 of 2024

M/S Sarnath Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Revisionist
Versus
M/S Span Infra Developers Ltd.
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Satish Chandra Dubey, Sr. Advocate, Ujjwal
Satsangi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta

Civil Laws - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 115 - Order 7 - Rules 11 - The
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 of part 2
of the Schedule - Civil Revision - challenging
the rejection order passed by Civil Judge
rejecting the misc. Application filed under order
7 Rules 11 CPC - suit - for specific performance
of contract - barred by limitation as prescribed
u/article 54 of part 2 of the schedule of the
limitation Act - per contra, plea taken that, even
if the agreement for sale did not fix any
particular date by way of time limit for execution
of sale deed, it should be taken to be a date
fixed by plaintiff and the limitation to file suit for
specific performance may run from the date of
the notice - court finds that, the whole purpose
and idea behind order 7 Rule 11 that the
meaningless litigation should not be dragged
and therefore, such power has to be exercise
very cautiously - held, limitation is a mixed
question of law and question of maintainability
of the suit for being barred by limitation is the
root of the matter - therefore, present civil
revision stands disposed of with direction to the
court below to decide the issue qua order 7 rules
11 as preliminary issue while framing the issues
in the suit and decide the same first by affording
reasonable opportunity to the parties. (Para - 7,
17, 22, 24)

Civil Revision Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ahmadsahab Abdul Mulla (2) (dead) Vs
Bibijan & ors.(2009) 5 SCC 462,