Ayodhya Minor Gangrape Case | 'He May Adversely Affect Trial': Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To SP Leader

A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia noted that although the FSL report on record confirms the paternity of the fetus with the co-accused and not with the SP Leader, the paternity test alone is not conclusive for determining whether the offence had been committed (as per Section 3 POCSO Act and the definition of rape u/s 375 IPC).

The Court also considered that the victim had levelled specific allegations against the 71-year-old applicant, and the documents on record also demonstrate that the applicant has political clout and during the investigation, pressure was exercised for compromise, for which an FIR was lodged.

The Court also noted that there is a huge variance in the social and financial status of the applicant and the victim, and at present, there is reasonable material to form a view that the applicant, if enlarged on bail at this stage, can adversely affect the trial.

The single judge, however, granted him the liberty to apply for bail afresh after the expiry of four weeks and after the testimony of the informant and the victim, are recorded.

It may be noted that in July this year, Ahmad and Khan were booked for the alleged gangrape of a 12-year-old victim who lived around 500 meters from Ahmad's now-demolished bakery.

The FIR, lodged by the Victim's mother, alleged that her daughter had gone to work in the agricultural fields around two and a half months ago when the co-accused 20-year-old Khan, who used to work in Ahmad's Bakery, came to her and asked her to come to the bakery as Ahmad was calling her.

Allegedly, after she reached the bakery, Ahmad, who was present there, caught her and formed physical relations with her against her consent, and a video of the said incident was also recorded. After that, co-accused Khan also committed wrong to the daughter of the informant.

The FIR further stated that on the threat of making the video viral and blackmailing the daughter of the informant, she was repeatedly raped, which resulted in the victim getting pregnant. Later on, the child was aborted.

After a local court denied him bail, Applicant-Moid Ahmad moved the HC, wherein his counsel argued that considering his age (71 years old), the allegation of commission of rape was not medically possible.

It was also contended that no time and date of the incident was mentioned in the FIR nor even in the statement, which itself makes the entire prosecution story suspicious.

It was also submitted that the applicant was the victim of a political conspiracy.

On the other hand, the AGA for the state opposed his bail plea on the ground that in the FIR as well as in the two statements, the victim had specifically named the applicant. It was also argued that being a politically connected person and because the victim is from an impoverished section of society, there is all likelihood of the victim being threatened or the applicant using the clout to adversely affect the course of the trial.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court denied him bail on the prima facie grounds that in terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that both the co-accused had committed wrong on the daughter of the informant, aged about 12 years and a video recording was also made and that physical relations were formed on multiple occasions with the victim.

Further, the single judge also directed that the victim's statement in terms of the mandate of Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act shall be recorded positively within thirty days from today.

The Court also directed the Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya to personally supervise and ensure that the victim and the informant are produced before the trial court for recording of their testimony, in a safe and secure manner

Case title - Moid Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

Case citation:

Click Here ToRead/Download Order