The Allahabad High Court rejected Samajwadi Party leader Moid Ahmad's bail plea in connection with the gang rape of a minor girl in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, in which he and his aide Raju Khan were named as accused.

The Single-Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia noted that while the FSL report confirmed the paternity of the foetus to the accomplice and not the SP leader, the paternity test alone is not conclusive to determine whether an offence (under Section 3 of the POCSO Act and the definition of rape under 375 IPC) has been committed.

"...in the present case, prima-facie 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; the allegations are that the physical relations were formed on multiple occasions with the victim aged about 12 years; in the statement under section 161 as well as in the second statement under section 164, which was recorded after obtaining permission from the trial court, prima-facie, allegations of wrong were levelled against both the accused; the FSL report on record although confirms the paternity of the fetus 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 observed.

The Court further said, "The specific allegations have been levelled by the victim, the documents on record also demonstrates that the applicant, has a politically clout and 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 the applicant and the victim, 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, as such, the bail merits rejection at this stage and is accordingly rejected."

It may be noted that in July this year, Ahmad and Khan were arrested for allegedly gang-raping a 12-year-old victim who lived around 500 metres from Ahmad's now-demolished bakery. According to the FIR filed by the victim's mother, her daughter had gone to work at a farm around two-and-a-half months ago when co-accused Khan (20) approached her and asked her to come to the bakery as Ahmad had called her.

Apparently after she arrived at the bakery, Ahmad, who was present there, grabbed her and had non-consensual carnal relations with her, an incident that was also videotaped. Following this, co-accused Khan also misconducted with the informant's daughter. The FIR further stated that after they threatened to spread the video and blackmail the informant's daughter, she was repeatedly raped, as a result of which the victim became pregnant. The child was subsequently aborted.

Moid's Counsel argued that the date and time of the incident did not even mention even the FIR or press release. It was also argued that the applicant was a victim of a political conspiracy.

Meanwhile, the State AGA opposed his bail application on the ground that the victim had specifically named the applicant in the FIR and in two statements. It also argued that since there are political connections and the victim is from a poor section of the society, there is a strong possibility that the victim may be intimidated and the applicant may use his influence to adversely affect the progress of the trial.

The Bench ordered, "...it transpires that in terms of the mandate of Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act, the statement of the victim should be recorded within a period of thirty days by the special court taking cognizance, however, no such statement has been recorded so far, as such, I deem it appropriate to direct that the statement of the victim shall be recorded positively within a period of thirty days from today."

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

"It is further directed that the Director FSL shall ensure that the forensic examination of the mobile submitted for FSL report is prepared positively within a period of four weeks from today. The applicant would be at liberty to apply for bail afresh after the expiry of four weeks and after the testimony of the informant and the victim, as directed above, are recorded," the Bench further directed.

Cause Title: Moid Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC-LKO:68414]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocates Ripu Daman Shahi, Saurabh Singh

Opposite Party: Government Advocate K. K. Singh

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Pankaj BhatiaAllahabad High CourtGang RapeSamajwadi PartyPOCSO Act

Sukriti Mishra