Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4350 of 2019 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Anil Kumar in Case Crime No.190 of 2018, under Section 366, 376, 342 IPC, Police Station Campiarganj, District Gorakhpur.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA along with Sri Madhnesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been lodged by her mother under Section 366 IPC nominating the applicant with an allegation of enticing away her daughter and also against the applicant's friend Kamini Singh. In the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded on 7.6.2018, she has stated that she proceeded on a certain carrier related training to Lucknow by train from Gorakhpur and as the train halted at Allahabad, the applicant came over, whom she was in love with for the past one year. He took her by train to Pune. All that she has said further is that she managed to come back, but there is not even a hint of any allegation of rape in the said statement, as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the medico legal report where the prosecutrix, while refusing to undergo an internal examination, has made a statement before the doctor in confidence, which is again a signed statement where the prosecutrix has said that she was abducted by Kamini Singh, but she has further said that she was not ravished. In the said statement, the name of the applicant does not figure at all. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that in a sharply different version, the prosecutrix has altered the case to one of rape against the applicant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate recorded on 15.06.2018. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the fact that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant in all the consistent accounts of the prosecutrix, in particular, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the statement made to the doctor, but has been suddenly introduced in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., makes the prosecution case entirely undependable. It is also pointed out that the prosecutrix is admittedly a major.
.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that there is no allegation of rape in any of the statements of the prosecutrix recorded earlier under Section 161 Cr.P.C., or before the doctor, but has figured for the first time in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate, the fact that the prosecutrix is an adult, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Anil Kumar in Case Crime No.190 of 2018, under Section 366, 376, 342 IPC, Police Station Campiarganj, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on executing his 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 :- 30.1.2019 NSC