Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38838 of 2018 Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
In compliance with the Court's order dated 19.12.2018, Neeraj Kumar Yadav, Sub Inspector of Police posted at P.S. Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur is present in person. He has produced before this Court a copy of the case diary which carries with it a complete copy of the medical report. It has been perused. The Investigating Officer, Neeraj Kumar Yadav need not appear in person in future. His personal presence stands exempted.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Arjun in connection with Case Crime No. 254 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504,376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
Heard Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, on the foot of averments in paragraphs Nos. 11 and 12 of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application, is that the applicant and the prosecutrix are related to each other through a step relationship. The aforesaid relationship is well explained in paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, where it is said that the father-in-law of the applicant, Late Bhola married twice. He first married one Chandrawati from whose wedlock a daughter named Tara was born. The victim of the present case, Pooja is the daughter of Tara Devi, or so to speak the grand-daughter of Bhola, in the maternal line of descent. Bhola married a second time one Smt. Manju Devi, and from that wedlock was born Smt. Manisha, the applicant's wife. Thus, the applicant is a maternal uncle (Mausa) to the prosecutrix, standing in a step relationship. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, also on the foot of allegations in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the affidavit, that there are issues over division of property, between the two branches of the family, representing the two different maternal lines of descent, which has led the prosecutrix into lodging an FIR on false allegations against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the prosecutrix is consistent in her account of the occurrence, but the same is demonstrably false, as a perusal of the medico legal report shows that the prosecutrix has not sustained any injury external, and, more particularly, internal, even the remotest, to support a case of rape, as alleged. It is pointed out that the medico legal examination was done within two days of the occurrence, and, had the occurrence taken place in the manner urged by the prosecution, there would certainly be a telltale signs of ravishment. He submits that there are none, and, taken the Court through the medico legal report, which in its completeness, has been presented to the Court today, along with the case diary.
The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecutrix has spoken inculpatory in all her statements during investigation. It is, however, not denied that there is a step relationship between parties, though, the existence of a property dispute is denied. It is also not denied that there are no injuries indicated in the medico legal report.
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 parties stand in a step relationship, where there appears to be some issues about property between them, the fact that the allegation of rape is not at all indicated by any telltale signs in the medico legal examination report which was done within the period of two days from the date of occurrence, 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 Arjun involved in Case Crime No. 254 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504,376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gorakhnath, 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 :- 21.12.2018 BKM/-