Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28252 of 2018 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kapil Tyagi,Bhabya Sahai
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, S/Sri Kapil Tyagi,Bhabya Sahai, learned counsels for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Anil in Case Crime No.78 of 2018, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Rabupura, District-Gautam Budh Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the first informant with an ulterior motive. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant on 11.03.2018 at 11.22 a.m. alleging therein that on 09.03.2018 at about 12.30 a.m. the applicant and co-accused after scaling walls, entered the house of the informant and forcibly abducted the prosecutrix and was taken to nearby field where she was raped by the applicant and co-accused. The applicant was allegedly assisted by one lady, Smt. Sonia. In the F.I.R. it is stated that on the next date of the incident when the prosecutrix was recovered, her condition was precarious and was unconscious. However, there is no medical report to support the said fact. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted after two days of the incident. However, no external or internal injury on her person was noted. It is stated that the manner in which the prosecution has set up entire case on the face of it is fabricated. The reality seems otherwise. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 21.03.2018, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsels for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that in fact the police was colluding with the accused and he has gone to the extent of exonerating two named accused, Arun and Sonia. The prosecutrix has supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant-Anil be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 MN/-