Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40962 of 2018 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Anil, in Case Crime No.319 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj.
Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix along with co-accused Vipin, his nephew, as there was a proposal by the prosecutrix's family for a matrimonial alliance with Vipin, which the applicant and other family members refused. It is submitted that the fact that the prosecution is patently mala fide and ex facie false. It is evident from the fact that in the FIR, where the prosecutrix is the author of it, there is a detailed account of the occurrence where the applicant and his nephew, Vipin are said to have ravished her together, and, on her raising alarm, her parents and other natives of the village came over and saw the two flee from the seen of occurrence. Learned counsel submits that by contrast, the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., says that the applicant and his nephew ravished her, and, thereafter, the applicant captured her in that vulnerable position on a mobile phone belonging to one Sandeep. It is further said, that out of predicament, the prosecutrix consumed poison. It is also said that she revealed what had happened to her sister-in-law. Learned counsel submits that comparing the two versions of the prosecutrix in the FIR, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on the one hand and that under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on the other, there is an irresistible and material discrepancy to the extent that it makes the prosecution story look unreliable to the face. There is no mention in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., of the prosecutrix's parents, who are said to have seen the occurrence, with other natives of the village, who had arrived. As against that, there is an added allegation of the prosecutrix being captured on a video clip on a mobile phone of Sandeep, followed by an allegation of consuming poison, revealing about the occurrence to her sister-in-law alone, all of which are at gross variance with the FIR, the FIR version otherwise being a prompt and a personal account by the prosecutrix herself. It is thus, argued that the prosecution was shaky and that the same cannot be accepted to its face.
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 allegation, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular the grossly discrepant version about the occurrence by the prosecutrix in the FIR authored by her and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 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, in Case Crime No.319 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj 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 :- 27.10.2018 NSC