Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49102 of 2018 Applicant :- Angad Yadav @ Arun Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Yadav,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Angad Yadav @ Arun Kumar Yadav in connection with S.T. No. 86 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 127 of 2015) under Section 376, 366, 506 IPC, P.S. Aharaula, District Azamgarh.
Heard Sri S.K. Dubey and Sri Vineet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he is not even remotely mentioned in the FIR, and, the allegation there is one of abducting the prosecutrix against the sole accused Shrikant @ Sidhan. It is submitted that in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has nominated the main accused Shrikant @ Sidhan as the man who abducted her and to a specific question, if there was anybody else besides the main accused, she said that there was no one else. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has come up with an allegation of abduction and rape against the main accused Shrikant @ Sidhan, and also introduced the presence of an unknown co-accused, who also ravished her. His identity is not disclosed there. The identity of this unknown assailant remained in anonymity throughout the investigation and a charge sheet came to be filed against the nominated accused, Shrikant @ Sidhan. It is pointed out that in due course, pending trial, Shrikant @ Sidhan has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9844 of 2016. It is further submitted that during trial, the prosecutrix in her evidence disclosed the name of the anonymous assailant, and, fixed his identity to that of the applicant. It is submitted that on the basis of dock evidence of the prosecutrix in the ongoing sessions trial, the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Azamgarh vide his order dated 16.08.2018. It is in pursuance to the process issued under Section 319 Cr.P.C. that the applicant has been committed to custody and is in jail. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution case against the applicant's stand on extremely flimsy ground, where the prosecutrix, or the investigating agency, did not fix the identity of the other assailant, identifying him as the applicant. It is submitted that the name of the applicant, to fill in the role of an anonymous assailant. is based on afterthought which the prosecutrix has brought in during trial, much later after the occurrence. It is also submitted that the main accused against whom there is consistent allegation from the FIR to the last detail of the investigation, that is to say, Shrikant @ Sidhan has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court and on that ground, in addition, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that the applicant is not nominated in the FIR and throughout during investigation with any kind of role but his name has been brought in much later, during the dock evidence of the prosecutrix about which there is no prima facie explanation, the fact that the main accused Shrikant @ Sidhan has been admitted to bail entitling the applicant to the benefit of parity, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Angad Yadav @ Arun Kumar Yadav involved in Case Crime No. S.T. No. 86 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 127 of 2015) under Section 376, 366, 506 IPC, P.S. Aharaula, District Azamgarh be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Deepak