Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that it is very unfortunate that nowadays, in maximum cases women are using false FIR under the POCSO as well as SC/ST Acts as a weapon just to grab money from the state or to ruin innocent persons' image.

"...which should be stopped," said the single judge bench comprising Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.

The judge, therefore, opined that in view of the rampant and daily increasing prevalence of such types of crimes of sexual violence, "it is high time that the State of UP and even the Union of India should become sensitive to this grave issue".

The court observed so while dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man accused of offences under Sections 376, 313, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The counsel for the bail applicant submitted before the high court that the case was false and it had been filed just to harrass the applicant. 

He asserted that as per the FIR itself, the alleged rape had taken place in the year 2011, whereas the FIR had been filed in 2019. 

".... about 8 years of the alleged incident but there is no plausible explanation regarding the huge delay," he contended. 

The counsel further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC had admitted that she had made a physical relationship with the applicant which meant that she was a consenting party. 

Moreover, he claimed that in her medical examination, the victim was found above the age of 18 years. 

Therefore, while highlighting that the co-accused in the case had already been granted pre-arrest bail, the counsel for the application pressed for anticipatory bail. 

Court noted that there were material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. 

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, court allowed him pre-arrest bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000, in the event of arrest. 

However, before parting with the case, court ordered that in case it is found that the FIR lodged by the victim was false, criminal proceeding under Section 344 CrPC against the victim shall be initiated after conducting inquiry.

It is also directed that in case any money is given by the State to the victim, the same shall also be recovered from the victim, added the court. 

Case Title: Ajay Yadav v State of UP and 3 Others