Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45339 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Anu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Anu Yadav in connection with Case Crime No. 489 of 2018, under Section 120-B, 34, 354 Ka, 452, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(G)/6, 8 POCSO Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar.
Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA alongwith Sri Ashutosh Srivastava appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that so far as the applicant is concerned, she is the mother of the co- accused Sumit and Amit, against whom there is an allegation of ravishing the prosecutrix. In fact, the allegation of ravishing the prosecutrix, on the day when the applicant is said to have called the prosecutrix inside her house and went away, is against co- accused, Amit, whereas that against Sumit it is of pinning down the prosecutrix to facilitate his brother. It is pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. no active role has been assigned to the applicant in abetting the crime, and, her role, if any, is on the fringes where she called in the prosecutrix inside home and went away. It is argued that her leaving home for some time is one may be per chance, and, in no manner inculpatory. She cannot be held liable for the offence of rape with aid of Section 120-B I.P.C. or abetment vicariously under the circumstances. It is also pointed out that co-accused, Sumit, against whom there is an allegation of direct participation, though not of rape has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 28694 of 2018 and that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea but does not dispute the fact of parity.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the applicant is a woman against whom there is no direct allegation of participation in the offence by way of aiding or abetting or the role of conspiracy, and, that co-accused, Sumit with a definite role, has been admitted to bail by this Court entitles the applicant to parity, but without expressing any opinion on merits, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Anu Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 489 of 2018, under Section 120-B, 34, 354 Ka, 452, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(G)/6, 8 POCSO Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar 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 :- 28.11.2018 BKM/-