"Victim Narrated Her Ordeal In Words & Signs": Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 62 Y/O Man Accused Of Raping 3 Y/O Girl
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a 62-year-old person accused of raping a 3-year-old girl as it noted that prima facie it was evident that the accused had committed an inhuman act of rape on a 3-year-old minor girl.The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also noted that the 3-year-old victim girl had narrated her ordeal in words as well as in signs and had explained...
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a 62-year-old person accused of raping a 3-year-old girl as it noted that prima facie it was evident that the accused had committed an inhuman act of rape on a 3-year-old minor girl.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also noted that the 3-year-old victim girl had narrated her ordeal in words as well as in signs and had explained the entire incident of rape, allegedly committed by the accused.
"...it is prima facie evident that the applicant has committed an inhuman act of rape on a minor girl of three years. The victim has narrated her ordeal in words as well as in signs and explained the entire incident of rape committed by the applicant. The medical report shows that victim's hymen was torn and there was swelling on her private parts. The applicant, who has prima facie, committed a heinous crime of rape on a three years old minor girl, is not entitled for bail," the Court remarked.
Essentially, the accused, booked under Section 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, had moved to the High Court after the rejection of his Bail Application in June 2021 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge.
Hearing his plea, the Court noted that the allegations against him are that he committed offence of rape with the 3-year-old victim girl. The Court also observed that in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, the victim had communicated by words and also by action that the applicant had raped her and blood was oozing out from her private parts.
Though the applicant argued that there was a delay of about five days in lodging the FIR and that he was falsely implicated in the present case as he was doing some job of Carpentry in the house of the father of the victim, and there was a dispute on payment of wages, however, the Court did not consider it fit to enlarge him on bail.
Case title - Sunil v. State of U.P. and Another CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29765 of 2021
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Click Here To Read/Download Order