Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31453 of 2018 Applicant :- Atul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldip Singh Yadav,Jayant Kumar,Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Kuldip Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Atul Yadav with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Charwa, District Kaushambi.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is argued that as per version of FIR as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation of sexual assault is against applicant and co-accused Rohit. However, in her statement before the doctor she has developed the story introducing three more persons who have not been named in the FIR. It is argued that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has repeated her statement given before the doctor in which the applicant is said to be standing outside the half constructed house where offence was committed. One of the co-accused Surendra Yadav was arrested and in his confessional statement he has accepted his offence regarding sexual assault upon the victim whereas the applicant is stated to be standing outside the house. The case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Surendra Yadav, who has already been granted bail vide order dated 04.09.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.27584 of 2018. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.05.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Anand Sri./-