Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by Samajwadi party leader Moid Ahmad seeking bail in case under Sections 376-DA, 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 5g(j) (ii)(l) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (‘POCSO Act’), P.S. Pura Kalandar, District Ayodhya. by Pankaj Bhatia,J. taking into account the fact that during the investigation, pressure was exercised for compromise and taking into account the huge variance in the social and the financial status of Moid Ahmad and the victim, viewed that if he is enlarged on bail at this stage, he can adversely affect the trial, thus rejected his bail application.
Background:
The victim aged about 12 years had gone to work on the agricultural fields when the co-accused who was a worker at the Bakery run by Moid Ahmad, came to her and asked her to come to Bakery, where Moid Ahmad raped her. It was stated that while physical relations were being formed, the co-accused made a video on the mobile phone and thereafter, he also committed her rape. It was also alleged that threats were issued that if she informed anyone the video would be made viral. It was further stated that on the threat of making the video viral and blackmailing the victim on various occasions, physical relations were formed against her consent, which resulted in the victim becoming pregnant. It was further stated that on account of society’s pressure, she did not inform anyone and one day when she felt unwell and was taken to the doctor, it was revealed that she was carrying a fetus of two months.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that as per the FSL Report the paternity of the fetus is confirmed with the co-accused and not with the applicant, however considering the mandate of Section 3 of the POCSO Act as well as the definition of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, one of the tests is that of paternity, the same alone is not conclusive with regard to the offence being committed or not.
The Court said that specific allegations have been levelled by the victim, the documents on record also demonstrate that Moid Ahmad has political influence. Thus, taking into account the fact that during the investigation, pressure was exercised for compromise for which an FIR was lodged and taking into account the huge variance in the social and the financial status of Moid Ahmad and the victim, the Court viewed that if Moid Ahmad is enlarged on bail at this stage, he can adversely affect the trial, thus rejected his bail application.
Further, after taking note of Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act, wherein the statement of the victim should be recorded within a period of thirty days by the special court taking cognizance, the Court said that no such statement has been recorded so far, thus it directed that the statement of the victim to be recorded positively within a period of thirty days from the date of this order.
Further, the Court directed that the statement of the informant to also be recorded positively within a period of one month from the date of this order.
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. Further, the Director FSL was directed to ensure that the forensic examination of the mobile submitted for FSL report is prepared positively within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
[Moid Ahmad v. State of U.P, 2024 SCC OnLine All 5942, decided on 03-10-2024]
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
