# Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 51543 of 2022
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramvilash-chhottan-chhottan-kori-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47906
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 ,
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 161, 164 , The Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 7/8 , Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
section 5/7 .

Maternal uncle of informant (accusedapplicant) - enticed away minor daughter
of informant - no medical evidence to
support
-
statements
of
prosecutrix
recorded under Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C.
-
prosecutrix
and
applicant
solemnized marriage - living together as
husband & wife. (Para -12 )

HELD:-Victim herself left her house and went to
the applicant. She was not enticed away by him.
Applicant made out a case for bail. (Para -
11,12)
Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

S. Varadarajan Vs St. of Madras, 1965 AIR (SC)
942

## Text

486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any good ground for enlarging the applicant
on bail at this stage.

15. The bail application of the
applicant is, accordingly, rejected.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 486
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 51543 of
2022

Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori
 ....Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramesh Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 ,
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 161, 164 , The Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 7/8 , Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
section 5/7 .

Maternal uncle of informant (accusedapplicant) - enticed away minor daughter
of informant - no medical evidence to
support
-
statements
of
prosecutrix
recorded under Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C.
-
prosecutrix
and
applicant
solemnized marriage - living together as
husband & wife. (Para -12 )

HELD:-Victim herself left her house and went to
the applicant. She was not enticed away by him.
Applicant made out a case for bail. (Para -
11,12)
Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

S. Varadarajan Vs St. of Madras, 1965 AIR (SC)
942

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant,
learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel
for the State-respondents and perused the
material on record.

2. Instant application for bail has been
filed by applicant-Ramvilash @ Chhottan @
Chhottan Kori supported by an affidavit of the
prosecutorix seeking his enlargement on bail
in Case Crime No.65 of 2020 under Sections
363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8
POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat,
District-Banda, during the pendency of trial.

3. Record shows that in respect of an
incident, which is alleged to have occurred on
09.03.2020, an F.I.R. dated 20.03.2020 was
lodged by first informant Premchand (father of
prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime
No.65 of 2020 under 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Kotwali Dehat, District-Banda.

4. In brief, as per prosecution story as
unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that
maternal uncle of the informant i.e. accusedapplicant (Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan
Kori) enticed away the minor daughter of the
informant, aged about 16 years on 09.03.2020
and she (prosecutorix) had taken away some
jewellary, money etc. along with her.

5. After registration of the aforesaid
F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with
statutory investigation of afore-mentioned
case crime number in terms of Chapter XII
12 All. Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
487
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, statement of prosecutrix
was also recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer wherein
she has not supported the prosecution story
as unfolded in the F.I.R. To the contrary,
prosecutrix has stated that she herself
accompanied the applicant out of her own
free will. She has also stated that she has
solemnized marriage with the applicant. As
a consequence of above, they started living
together as husband and wife. Thereafter,
prosecutrix was requested for her medical
examination, which was refused by her.
Ultimately, the statement of prosecutrix
was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
wherein she re-joined her earlier statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating
Officer during the course of investigation,
also recovered the mark-sheet/certificate
pertaining to the High School Examination
of prosecutrix wherein her date of birth is
recorded as 11.07.2004, copy of the same
has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the bail
application.

6. Aggrieved with the above, applicant
and other co-accused persons have filed a
petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.52 of 2021 seeking stay in the aforesaid
FIR and, thereafter, considering the facts of
the case, a Division Bench of this Court vide
order
dated
11.01.2021
stayed
the
proceedings of the aforesaid case crime
number against the applicant as well as other
two accused persons, which was also
extended on 12.02.2021 till 01.04.2021 and is
still pending now.

7. After recording the statement of the
prosecutorix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on
13.09.2022, an application was given by the
police before the court of Juvenile Justice
Board, Banda and on that application on
14.09.2020, concerned Juvenile Court passed
the order mentioning therein that he has no
jurisdiction
to
the
same
as
prosecutorix/victim is major and aged about
18 years and two months. Thereafter, victim
has moved an application before the
concerned police station stating therein that
she did not want to go with her parents and
wants to go with her mother-in-law for living
their happily life. On 14.09.2020, another
application has also been moved by the father
of the victim before the concerned police
station wherein, he has specifically stated that
she (prosecutorix) is major and he has no
concern with her and denied for keeping
them, copies of the same have been annexed
as Annexure-7 to the bail application.

8. The occurrence occurred on
09.03.2020. As such, prosecutrix was aged
about 15 years and 07 months and 28 days on
the date of occurrence. On the basis of above
and other material collected by Investigating
Officer during course of investigation, he
opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly,
he submitted charge sheet, whereby applicant
has been charge sheeted under Sections under
Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8
POCSO Act.

9. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that though the applicant is a named
and charge sheeted accused but he is
innocent. He has then invited the attention of
the Court to the statements of prosecutrix
recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
wherein,
she
has
not
supported
the
prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. He
therefore submits that prosecutrix had gone
and accompanied the applicant out of her
own free will, as such no offence as has been
alleged in the aforesaid case crime number
can be said to have been committed by the
applicant. Prosecutrix and applicant were in
love with each other. Prosecutrix has
subsequently solemnized marriage with the
applicant on 04.08.2022 under section 5/7 of
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is lastly
contended that applicant is a man of clean
antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal
history to his credit except present one.
Applicant is in jail since 15.09.2022. In case
the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate
with
trial.
Charge-sheet
having
been
submitted against applicant, therefore, the
evidence sought to be relied upon by the
prosecution
against
applicant,
stands
crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of
applicant is not absolutely necessary during
course of trial. On the cumulative strength of
above, he submits that applicant is liable to be
enlarged on bail

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party has vehemently opposed the
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts
on record.

11. The ingredients of offence under
Section 363 IPC are not made out against the
applicant as per the judgement of Apex Court in
the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of
Madras, 1965 AIR (SC) 942, since the victim
herself left her house and went to the applicant.
She was not enticed away by him.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for
applicant, learned counsel for the opposite
party, upon consideration of evidence on record,
considering the aforesaid case-law, accusations
made as well as complicity of applicant coupled
with the fact that there is no medical evidence to
support
the
prosecution
of
applicant,
prosecutrix in her statements recorded under
Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. having not
supported the prosecution case, prosecutrix and
applicant having solemnized marriage and are
living together as husband & wife and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

10. Accordingly, present bail application
for bail is allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Ramvilash @
Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori involved in
aforesaid case crime number be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned with the following conditions
which are being imposed in the interest of
justice:-

(i) Applicant will not tamper with
prosecution evidence.

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of
court, will attend the court on every date and
will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner
whatsoever.

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any
unlawful activities.

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the
liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

The identity, status and residential proof of
sureties will be verified by court concerned and
in case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, court concerned will be at
liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send
him to prison.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 488
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 122 of 2022

Karam Veer Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant: