Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47385 of 2018 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Arun Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 150 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kasimabad, District Ghazipur.
Heard Sri Puneet Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of prosecutrix's age based on an ossification test, the report being dated 31.03.2018 which is placed at page no. 57/58 of the paper book, the prosecutrix has been opined to be 18 years. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is, therefore, clearly a major, and, the provisions of of POCSO Act would not at all be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where it is said that the applicant has forcibly taken the prosecutrix with one Golu and housed her in his sister's home at some place in Himachal Pradesh. It is also said that the applicant thereafter got her forcibly married to Golu with whom she started living and had carnal relations by her consent. It is pointed out, by contrast, that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has said that she and Golu went along with the applicant on his motorcycle to Mau railway station wherefrom both of them proceeded to Delhi; from Delhi to Bareilly and thence to Himachal pradesh where they married according to Hindu Rites and now she is living with Golu as man and wife. To the same effect, is in her statement made before the doctor in confidence, a copy of which is annexed at page no. 32 of paper book. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix is an adult and eloped with co-accused Golu, whom she married and the role assigned to the applicant is of facilitating her, for the most part, except the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where the allegation is of forcibly taking her away and forcibly marrying her to Golu, which appears to have been made under the social pressure after she was recovered.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and to the doctor about the entire occurrence, the fact that for the most part of evidence, the role of the applicant is merely facilitating the applicant in eloping with the co-accused, Golu, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Arun Kumar involved in Case Crime No.
150 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kasimabad, District Ghazipur be released on bail on executing a 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 Deepak