# Ram Sajeevan @ Babu v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties - **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 446 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-07-27 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 3722 of 2022 - **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sajeevan-babu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-48794 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote the medical evidence as the doctor in the medical examination report of the victim has opined that there is no external or internal injury found on the person of victim nor there is any dead or live spermatozoa seen. The radiological age of the victim was 19 years. Thus, she is major and she knew her consequences very well and therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. Bail Application allowed. (E-12) List of Cases relied upon:- ## Text 446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES application before the court concerned on 25.4.2022 but he did not surrender. Further, despite the proclamation u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. having been issued the present applicant is avoiding the process of law, therefore, he is not entitled for any protection. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and also considering the fact that one more F.I.R. was lodged by the informant / complainant against the other persons more or less on the same allegations of rape etc. wherein her name and her father's name is different, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged after the unexplained delay of one year three months and twenty three days and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicant be protected till filing of the charge-sheet, if any in view of dictum of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98". However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the present applicant has not appeared before the investigating officer as yet, therefore, I hereby fix the date as 25.7.2022 directing the applicant to appear before the investigating officer on that date, failing which the benefit of this order will not be available to the applicant. He shall further abide by the directions of the investigating officer for the purposes of investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. If at any time it is found that applicant is misusing the liberty of bail, any appropriate application may be filed by the opposite parties including State for seeking cancellation of this anticipatory bail. 18. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Suresh Babu, shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- 1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; 3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; 4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; 5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; In view of above, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of. ---------- (2022) 8 ILRA 446 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 27.07.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 3722 of 2022 Ram Sajeevan @ Babu ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties 8 All. Ram Sajeevan @ Babu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 447 Counsel for the Applicant: Atul Kumar Singh Gaur Counsel for the Opp. Parties: G.A., Aditya Vikram Singh, Yash Pandey A. The allegation of rape is not supported by the medical evidence as the doctor in the medical examination report of the victim has opined that there is no external or internal injury found on the person of victim nor there is any dead or live spermatozoa seen. The radiological age of the victim was 19 years. Thus, she is major and she knew her consequences very well and therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. Bail Application allowed. (E-12) List of Cases relied upon:- 1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned AGA and learned counsel for the applicant respectively are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aditya Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sushil Kumar Panday, learned AGA and perused the record. 3. The applicant, Ram Sajeevan @ Babu has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0499 of 2021, under Sections 376,504,506 IPC, section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki, during trial. 4. Learned counsel for the informant does not propose to file any counter affidavit on behalf of the informant despite time being given to him. Today, also when the Court asked him to file the counter affidavit, he submits that inspite of several intimations the informant is not turning up to file counter affidavit, therefore, he submits that he will argue the case in absence of the counter affidavit. As such, this Court proceeds in the matter for final hearing. 5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the applicant have no objection. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village party bandi. No such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. The entire prosecution story was levelled only with the intention to falsely implicate the applicant and to defame the image of the applicant and his entire family in the society. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant has made physical relation and also the victim and applicant solemnized their marriage in a temple whereas in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has neither made any allegation of physical relation against the applicant nor has admitted this fact that the victim and applicant have solemnized their marriage. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the parents of the victim are creating pressure on the applicant to solemnize the marriage with the victim. On refusal by the applicant and his family members, this false case has been roped against the applicant and he was 448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES falsely implicated in the present case and allegation of rape was levelled against him. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegation of rape as levelled by the victim also got demolished after perusal of the medical examination report of the victim as the doctor has opined therein that the age of the victim was 19 years and her vaginal and cervical smear is negative for spermatozoa and gonococci. No definite opinion can be given about sexual assault. The doctor further opined that there is no external or internal injury seen on the person of the victim. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim has also given an application before the investigating officer, in which she has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant. 11. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 04.01.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 12. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that except the fact that in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. no allegation of rape was levelled by the victim against the applicant but the crime has been committed, therefore, the bail application may be rejected. 13. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that there is vast contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the version of the first information report. The allegation of rape is not supported by the medical evidence as the doctor in the medical examination report of the victim has opined that there is no external or internal injury found on the person of victim nor there is any dead or live spermatozoa seen. The radiological age of the victim was 19 years. Thus, she is major and she knew her consequences very well and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 14. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 8 All. Manish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 449 15. Let the applicant Ram Sajeevan @ Babu involved in case crime no. 0499 of 2021, under Sections 376,504,506 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. (3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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. (6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. (8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 16. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 17. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case. ---------- (2022) 8 ILRA 449 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Appl. No. 4645 of 2022 Manish Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opp. Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Sri Ramashray Tripathi Counsel for the Opp. Party: G.A.